Faculty Dispute Procedures

Chapter 29 – Faculty Dispute Procedures

(Amended 4/21/93; further amended and approved by Regents 5/21-22/97; 1/02; 8/13; 9/16; 7/1/24)

Effective July 1, 2024, these procedures have been completely rewritten. Individual changes are not highlighted.

29.1 General Provisions and Definitions
29.2 The Faculty Judicial Commission
29.3 Tenure-Track Denial of Reappointment, Tenure, or Promotion
29.4 Tenure-Track Faculty Grievance
29.5 Tenure-Track Unacceptable Performance Warranting Termination
29.6 Tenure-Track Ethics and Conduct Violation
29.7 Tenure-Track Judicial Procedures
29.8 Specialized-Faculty Grievances
29.8(1) Administrative Review Procedures

29.8(2) Peer Review Procedures
29.9 Research Ethics Violation

29.1 General Provisions and Definitions

Scope. These Faculty Dispute Procedures were approved by the Faculty Senate and the President. They are effective as of July 1, 2024, and shall apply to any matter initiated pursuant to these policies on or after that date. These procedures constitute the exclusive remedy for a faculty member to challenge university decisions and for the university to implement sanctions against a faculty member under the procedures regarding Ethics and Conduct Violations (III-29.6) or Unacceptable Performance (III-29.5). Cases alleging research misconduct, sexual harassment/sexual misconduct, or protected-class discrimination/harassment/retaliation are subject to other university processes and procedures governing those matters, and investigation of those allegations falls outside the scope of these procedures, but the resulting sanctions may be appealed using these procedures
Faculty tracks. Sections III-29.3 through III-29.7 of these procedures apply to tenure-track and tenured faculty in all colleges. These sections also apply to clinical-track faculty in the College of Law to comply with accreditation requirements. Section III-29.8 applies to specialized faculty, meaning faculty in the clinical, research, and instructional tracks as described in III-10, with the exception of the clinical faculty in the College of Law, as noted above.
University decisions. A faculty member may use these procedures to seek review of a range of final university decisions that are made at the Provost, collegiate, or departmental administrative levels. Notifications of final decisions shall be sent when faculty are under contract.
Standard of judgment. "Clear and convincing evidence" means that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. "Preponderance of the evidence" means a party must persuade, by the evidence presented, that what they are required to prove is more likely to be true than not. "Clear and convincing evidence" requires a higher degree of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence."
Right to counsel. In all proceedings governed by these Faculty Dispute Procedures, a faculty member may, at the faculty member's discretion and expense, be represented by legal counsel.
Faculty member status. The status of a faculty member involved in a case under these procedures shall not be altered detrimentally until the proceedings are completed except insofar as the President may exercise emergency powers under the Regents' Rules or be required by a court order to do so. The status of a faculty member shall include the faculty member's tenure, rank, base salary and benefits, collegiate affiliation, and, where applicable, departmental affiliation.
Communications. All written communication will ordinarily be done through university email unless otherwise agreed. Communication to or from a faculty member by email is considered complete when emailed.
Time periods. In computing a time period under these procedures, the day that a university decision is delivered to the faculty member shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included unless general university offices are not open on that day, in which case the period continues until the end of the next day on which the offices are open. "Business days" are those days on which central university offices are open. Within the discretion of the appropriate person(s) (presiding officer, administrative officer, or faculty judicial panel), time periods designated in these procedures may be extended for good cause.
Costs. A faculty member who files a case under these regulations must pay the cost of the faculty member’s legal counsel, if any, as well as the expenses of any witnesses called by the faculty member, and reasonable charges for copies of documents that are made for the faculty member. Except as otherwise noted in these procedures, other costs of the investigation will be borne by the university.
Prior findings final. Under these procedures, faculty judicial panels may examine administrative decisions imposing measures or sanctions, but they may not reinvestigate final determinations that have been the subject of a judicial process or prior investigative processes under institutional policies.
1. The following determinations or findings shall not be subject to review, provided the faculty member had opportunity to substantively participate in the investigative or judicial process:
  1. Investigative report by the Office of Institutional Equity;
  2. Outcomes and adjudication report under iI-4 Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct;
  3. Determination by a Research Misconduct Committee;
  4. Investigative report by the Office of Employee and Labor Relations;
  5. Report of the Office of Internal Audit; or
  6. Similar offices conducting investigations pursuant to institutional policies.
2. Court rulings and determinations by state offices such as the Attorney General or the State Auditor shall be considered final and not subject to review under these procedures. The administrative officer, in consultation with the presiding officer, will determine whether any sanctions related to such a ruling or determination may be subject to review by a judicial panel.
Administrative officer. Implementation of the faculty dispute procedures in III-29.3 through III-29.9 shall be facilitated by the administrative officer, who shall have a JD, and preferably also faculty or higher education experience. The university President in consultation with Faculty Senate leadership will develop a process to fill the role of the administrative officer. The individual nominated to serve in this position will either be approved by two-thirds of the members present at a Faculty Senate meeting or by two-thirds of members who participate in a special ballot of the Faculty Senate.
All references in this policy that impose responsibilities on the Provost shall be interpreted to allow the provost’s designee to fulfill those responsibilities in lieu of the Provost.
Amendments of these regulations. Proposals to amend these regulations may be initiated by the Faculty Senate, the Provost, the President, or the Board of Regents.

29.2 The Faculty Judicial Commission

Composition and appointment of commission.
1. Members. The Faculty Judicial Commission shall consist of at least thirty members: one presiding officer and at least twenty-nine regular panelists from tenure-track and specialized tracks. The Faculty Senate shall approve the members of the commission on an ongoing basis, so that whenever members are selected for service on a panel, additional members are appointed and ready for panel service. In doing so, the Faculty Senate officers shall consult confidentially with the Provost to avoid actual and/or perceived conflicts of interest in the appointment of panelists. The Faculty Senate shall ensure that enough appointed members are available for service in the summer so that any cases arising under these procedures may proceed without delay. The President of the Faculty Senate shall consult with the provost to designate one of the members to be the presiding officer of the commission.
2. To be eligible for service on the Faculty Judicial Commission as a potential panelist or presiding officer, a faculty member must be eligible for election to the Faculty Senate and hold at least a 50 percent faculty appointment. Neither probationary faculty members nor faculty members with greater than 50 percent administrative roles are eligible for Judicial Commission service. The latter will become eligible for service two years after completion of their administrative appointment. Members of the Faculty Judicial Commission may be subject to additional training requirements.
3. The term of appointment for the Judicial Commission and presiding officer shall be for three years. If a member or presiding officer is unable to finish a term, the Faculty Senate shall appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. No one who has served six consecutive years as a member in any combination of regular, interim, or special appointments may be reappointed as a member of the Judicial Commission until a year has elapsed, but the term of any member will be extended in order that they may finish a case. No one may serve more than two consecutive terms as presiding officer.
4. A member of the Faculty Judicial Commission may be removed from that role by a majority vote of the Faculty Council following a recommendation by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may be removed from that office by a majority vote of the Faculty Council following a recommendation from the Faculty Senate President.
Functions of presiding officer and panelists.
1. The presiding officer shall perform all tasks and functions assigned to the presiding officer under these procedures in addition to the following:
  1. in coordination with the administrative officer, maintain a file of all cases that are brought to the commission;
  2. make periodic reports to the Faculty Council about the work of the commission; and
  3. consult with the administrative officer and panelists concerning the meaning of the Faculty Dispute Procedures and procedural questions affecting the handling of a case.
2. A faculty judicial panel serves as a hearing panel, as required, in the following situations:
  1. in a Denial of Reappointment, Tenure, or Promotion case, under III-29.3;
  2. in a Grievance case, under III-29.4;
  3. in an Unacceptable Performance case, under III-29.5;
  4. in an Ethics and Conduct case, under III-29.6;
  5. in a Specialized Track Peer Review, under III.29.8; and
  6. in a Research Ethics Violation case, under III-29.9.

29.3 Tenure-Track Denial of Reappointment, Tenure, or Promotion

Scope. The procedures described in this section constitute the exclusive remedy within the university for a faculty member who wishes to challenge a university decision to deny reappointment, tenure, or promotion, to the faculty member. The university's policies regarding tenure are set forth in III-10.5.
Notice of decision and right to challenge. The collegiate dean shall promptly, via email, inform the faculty member of the university decision and of the faculty member's right to challenge it under these regulations and shall provide a link to these procedures as part of that official notification (decision notice).
Grounds for a challenge to a decision to deny reappointment, tenure, or promotion. A challenge by a faculty member to a university decision denying reappointment, tenure, or promotion to the faculty member may be made only on one or more of the grounds which are identified and defined as follows:
1. Violation of a university obligation: that the decision was made in violation of a written promise of reappointment, tenure, or promotion to the faculty member by an authorized administrator of the university;
2. Clearly adequate record of achievement: that the decision is unjustified based on the faculty member's clearly adequate record of achievement under governing standards of the department or other academic unit in question;
3. Violation of academic freedom: that the decision was a violation of the faculty member's academic freedom as described by the Board of Regents;
4. Improper procedure: that the decision was made without reasonable consultation with the faculty colleagues of the faculty member as required by the university, or in a way that violates established university, college, or department procedures; or
5. Unfair Impediment: that the decision was the result of a failure of the faculty member to meet the requirements for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, due to an unfair impediment for which the university or one of its officers is responsible.
Protected classification discrimination. Formal complaints of discrimination on the basis of a protected classification in the employment context fall within the purview of the university’s Office of Civil Rights Compliance. Formal findings as the result of the investigation may be used to support claims under grounds set out above.
Petition to initiate proceedings. The faculty member who desires to initiate proceedings on the basis of one or more of these grounds must do so pursuant to the Judicial Procedures described in III-29.7.

29.4 Tenure-Track Faculty Grievance

Scope. The procedures described in this section constitute the exclusive remedy within the university for a faculty member who wishes to challenge the legitimacy of a university administrative decision that substantially affects the faculty member’s terms and conditions of appointment, provided, however, that these procedures are not applicable to decisions on reappointment, tenure, or promotion, and that they may not be accessed to challenge university-initiated actions or ongoing investigations, including those covered by the Ethics Procedures (III-29.6), the Unacceptable Performance policy (III-29.5), or the Research Ethics Violation Procedures (III-29.9).
Informal discussions. A faculty member may seek informal resolution through discussions with the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Provost, or anyone else connected to the matter. In any such discussion, the faculty member may be accompanied by legal counsel and/or another faculty member who does not have a conflict of interest in attending.
Timely challenge.
1. Request for statement of reasons. If the matter is not resolved to the faculty member’s satisfaction through informal discussions, the faculty member may request a statement of reasons from the provost within 60 business days from when the faculty member was informed in writing of the decision. The faculty member must state in some detail the nature of the complaint and the remedy sought.
2. The Provost must provide the faculty member a written statement of reasons with reasonable detail within 20 business days.
  
  After receiving the statement of reasons, the faculty member may initiate a challenge to the administrative decision under these procedures, initiating the Judicial Procedures described in III-29.7 below.
Grounds. A faculty member may initiate this procedure only on one or more of the following grounds:
1. Violation of a university obligation. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show that on the basis of a written promise to the faculty member by an authorized administrator of the university, the faculty member was justified in believing that promise and relied detrimentally on it. The faculty member must either present in evidence the document(s) on which the claim of a violation of a university obligation is based or else justify the failure to do so.
2. Unfair Impediment. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show both that:
  1. the decision significantly impairs the ability of the faculty member to do what is ordinarily expected of a faculty member; and
  2. the decision is not significantly related either to any reasonable institutional need or to the faculty member’s performance.
3. Violation of academic freedom. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show that the administrative decision violated the faculty member's academic freedom.
Protected classification discrimination. Formal complaints of discrimination on the basis of a protected classification in the employment context fall within the purview of the university’s Office of Civil Rights Compliance. Formal findings as the result of the investigation may be used to support claims under grounds set out above.

29.5 Tenure-Track Unacceptable Performance Warranting Termination

Scope. These procedures apply when the university alleges that the performance of duty of a faculty member has fallen below the applicable standard of performance to such an extent and duration that termination is warranted. These procedures may be invoked following a regular 5-year post-tenure peer review and when reasonable efforts have been made by university, collegiate, and departmental officers to resolve concerns about unacceptable faculty performance in accordance with the university's policies governing post-tenure performance. Such policies include but are not limited to annual evaluations for merit pay, subsequent post-tenure peer review(s), and other remedies short of termination.
Initial actions by the dean. Any complaint that a tenured faculty member’s performance warrants action under this policy shall be brought to the provost by the dean of the college of the faculty member’s tenure home. The collegiate dean or designee may make such a complaint only after formal review of the record of the faculty member's performance according to the following procedures. In a college without departments, the dean shall perform all functions assigned to the DEO in these procedures.
1. The DEO or dean’s designee, in consultation with the collegiate dean, will appoint an ad-hoc review committee consisting of at least three faculty members, the majority of whom must be from the faculty member’s department/unit and all of whom must be at or above the faculty member’s rank. If the faculty member has a joint appointment, the committee shall have representatives from all respective departments. The dean shall provide the faculty member written notification that a request for a review of performance under this policy has been made.
2. Compiling the record. The DEO shall compile the record, which shall include all previous post-tenure annual and peer reviews of performance, as well as the faculty member's corresponding responses and provide a copy to the ad hoc committee and the faculty member.
3. Action by the committee. The ad-hoc review committee will have the specific charge to determine:
  1. whether or not the faculty member's performance of duty has been, for a significant period, substantially below the standard of performance required of an individual in the position.
  2. whether the written record of the faculty member’s performance and any improvement plans demonstrate that the university provided adequate opportunity for the faculty member to correct their performance of duty deficiencies. The faculty member’s written record may include, but is not limited to, post-tenure review, annual evaluations, other methods of peer evaluation, DEO and/or dean performance improvement plans and outcomes, and any responses to those reports by the faculty member.
  3. Within 20 business days of appointment, the ad-hoc committee will review the faculty member’s written record of performance, will prepare a written report that summarizes their findings, and make a recommendation concerning whether the faculty member's performance of duties warrants further action. This report will become part of the record. The committee may obtain and use both internal and external assessments of a faculty member's teaching, scholarship, and service; the assessors’ identifying information will not be included in the report. The written report must include an explanation of the standards used to judge the faculty member's performance and the basis for determining any conclusions or recommendations. The compiled record will be sent to the DEO, who will promptly provide a copy of the report to the faculty member.
4. The faculty member’s DEO will provide an independent written evaluation of the faculty member’s performance of duty within 10 business days of receiving the committee’s report. The DEO shall also provide to the dean either support for the committee’s assessment or the rationale for a difference of opinion with that assessment. The DEO’s report shall become part of the record. The compiled record will then be sent to the dean.
5. All reports and evaluations, redacted to protect individuals, will be provided to the faculty member by the dean. The faculty member will have 20 business days to submit a response to the written reports and evaluations.
Formal action by the dean. After receiving all of the above information, the dean provides a written evaluation, using the prior evaluative reports and reviews for guidance.
1. If the dean determines that the materials do not substantiate a complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination, the dean shall notify the faculty member and the DEO and the matter shall be closed.
2. If the dean determines that the materials substantiate a complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination, the dean shall submit to the provost in writing a complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination. The dean's complaint shall include the entire written record and response from the faculty member (collectively, the record). The dean’s complaint also shall describe the efforts that have been made to resolve the matter within the established procedures of the college in question.
3. The Provost will send a copy of the complaint to the faculty member. The faculty member may respond to the dean’s determination in writing to the provost within 10 business days.
Formal action by the Provost.
1. On receipt of the dean's complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination, the Provost shall determine whether:
  1. good faith efforts have been made by collegiate and departmental officers to resolve concerns in a manner mutually acceptable to all parties.
  2. the record (s) reasonably substantiates the complaint that the faculty member's performance of duty has fallen below the applicable standard of performance to such an extent and duration that consideration of termination is warranted. If the Provost determines that the record does not reasonably substantiate the complaint, the provost shall return the complaint to the college with an explanation for that determination.
2. If the Provost determines that the record reasonably substantiates unacceptable performance by the faculty member such that termination is warranted, the Provost shall:
  1. send to the presiding officer a copy of the dean’s complaint and a formal charge of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination against the faculty member; and
  2. send to the faculty member a copy of both items referenced above, together with a notice that the matter will proceed to the hearing process pursuant to these procedures.
3. Hearing process. To proceed with the hearing process, the Provost must initiate proceedings under the Judicial Procedures in III-29.7.

29.6 Tenure-Track Ethics and Conduct Violation

Scope. The procedures described in this section constitute the exclusive process for termination of a faculty member for violation of III-15 Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility, except for any finding of violation of II-27.6 Ethics in Research, which shall proceed to III-29.9 for resolution. Procedures applicable to complaints that a faculty member violated any other university policy are stated under paragraph b below.
1. Complaint. Such a complaint may be filed with the provost by any person, or a complaint may be initiated by the Provost.
2. Preliminary actions by the Provost. The Provost shall make a brief investigation as may be appropriate to determine whether there is a reasonable basis for believing that a violation of the Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility policy by a faculty member has occurred. This investigation, to be conducted in such a manner as to avoid injury to the faculty member's reputation, ordinarily shall be completed within 20 business days following receipt of the complaint.
  1. If, at this time or at any later time, the Provost concludes that a reasonable basis does not exist, the Provost shall promptly notify the complainant. Despite a finding of no reasonable basis, the Provost may, in their discretion, propose measures for reconciliation between the faculty member and the complainant. If the faculty member and the complainant do not agree to participate in such reconciliatory measures, the case will be closed, and no further investigation or review will be undertaken.
  2. If the Provost concludes that there is a reasonable basis for believing that a violation of the Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility policy has occurred, the Provost, on behalf of the university, may forward a petition to the presiding officer, send a copy to the faculty member, and the matter shall proceed under the Judicial Procedures described in III-29.7 below.
Policy violation and corrective measures. If a faculty member is found to have violated university policy governing conduct of faculty members (including those also governing conduct of staff and/or students), then the Provost on behalf of the university shall notify the faculty member of the violation and the corrective measures to be imposed, which may include sanctions up to and including termination. Examples of such policies include the Community Policies in Part II of this Policy Manual but shall not include II-27.6 Ethics in Research, from which a finding of violation shall proceed to III-29.9 Research Ethics Violation for resolution.
Hearing process. If the faculty member refuses the imposed corrective measures and there is no alternate resolution acceptable to both parties, the provost may initiate proceedings under the Judicial Procedures as described in III-29.7.

29.7 Tenure-Track Judicial Procedures

Note: Hearings on III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violation must be held within 10 business days of assigning panel.

Petition to initiate proceedings.
1. Petition by faculty member. A faculty member may initiate a challenge to a university decision within the scope of these procedures by submitting a petition:
  1. For a challenge to denial of reappointment, tenure, or promotion (III-29.3): within 30 business days after the faculty member receives the Decision Notice; or
  2. For a challenge to a university decision under the Grievance policy (III- 29.4): within 20 business days after the faculty member receives the Statement of Reasons from the Provost.
    
    The petition shall be directed to the presiding officer of the Faculty Judicial Commission, who shall forward copies of the petition to the faculty member's DEO, the collegiate dean, and the Provost. The faculty member must attach to the petition a copy of the challenged decision and related documents supporting the petition. The petition also must specify the ground(s) for the challenge with as much specificity as possible based on evidence or information available to the faculty member when the petition is submitted. If the faculty member has no basis for proceeding on a particular ground, then that ground may not be included in the challenge.
2. Petition by the Provost. The Provost may initiate a proceeding against a faculty member pursuant to the III-29.5 Unacceptable Performance Warranting Termination or III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violation by submitting a petition to the presiding officer of the Faculty Judicial Commission, stating the allegations and attaching related documents supporting the petition. The presiding officer shall forward copies of the petition to the faculty member, their DEO, collegiate dean, and administrative officer.
Pre-hearing actions by the presiding officer.
1. In any matter other than one under III-29.4 Faculty Grievance, the presiding officer shall appoint a faculty judicial panel to review and decide the case.
2. In a matter under III-29.4 Faculty Grievance, the presiding officer shall review the petition to confirm that it falls within the scope of that policy.
  1. If the matter falls within the scope, the presiding officer shall appoint a faculty judicial panel to review and decide the case;
  2. If the matter does not fall within the scope, the presiding officer shall notify the faculty member and the Provost. The President of the university shall then review the presiding officer’s decision and decide whether the claim falls within the scope as follows:
    1. Within 10 business days of receiving the petition, the presiding officer shall provide the President with a copy of the petition and the presiding officer's decision that the petition does not fall within the scope. In making the final determination, the President may request oral or written statements from the parties to be submitted within 10 business days of the request. Oral statements shall be presented to the opposing party at the same time as the President and be recorded. Any party submitting a requested written statement shall copy the opposing party and the presiding officer.
    2. The President shall notify the presiding officer of the decision within a reasonable period, ordinarily to be within 10 business days after the deadline for submitting statements, if any, and the presiding officer shall forward copies of the President's decision to the faculty member and the Provost.
    3. If the President determines that the petition falls within the scope, then the presiding officer shall appoint a faculty judicial panel to review and decide the case.
    4. If the President determines that the petition does not fall within the scope, that decision shall constitute final institutional action subject to appeal, if any, to the Board of Regents, State of Iowa, pursuant to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.
3. Assignment of panelists to case. The presiding officer shall assign panelists to a matter under III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violations no later than 5 business days after receipt of the petition. In all other matters, the presiding officer shall assign the panelists within 15 business days.
4. The presiding officer shall maintain a current list of the members of the Faculty Judicial Commission. This list shall be a public document and available to the parties in any case under these procedures. When a case arises requiring the assignment of a panel, the Presiding Officer shall not assign:
  1. any panelist whom the presiding officer determines has had prior interactions with any party that might make it difficult or appear to make it difficult for the panelist to be impartial;
  2. any panelist against whose service any party shows cause to the satisfaction of the presiding officer;
  3. any panelist whose faculty appointment is without tenure if the case concerns denial of tenure;
  4. any panelist whose rank is below the rank to which promotion is at issue in the case;
  5. any panelist who will not be able to serve continuously until the panel can make its final report;
  6. any panelist who has served on a panel during the preceding semester, unless it is determined that no other panelist is available for service on the new panel. In no case shall a panelist currently serving on a panel be appointed to serve on a second panel unless all other eligible members are also currently serving on a panel.
5. The presiding officer shall then assign three panelists from the remaining list by lot or in any other random manner, except that, in making these assignments:
  1. the presiding officer shall not assign more than one panelist from any single college in any cases brought under III-29.3 Denial of Reappointment, Tenure or Promotion; and
  2. the presiding officer shall assign at least one panelist holding the rank of tenured professor to any panel in a case challenging denial of tenure or promotion.
6. After the composition of the panel is determined, the presiding officer shall appoint one of the panelists to chair the panel and notify the administrative officer, who shall notify the parties.
7. Either party may challenge a member of the Faculty Judicial Panel who has been appointed for a cause that becomes known to the party after the panelist’s appointment. The party must raise such a challenge with the presiding officer, who will determine, in consultation with the administrative officer, the appropriate manner for addressing the challenge.
Procedures in faculty-initiated matters only.
1. Faculty member claim within grounds. Once a panel has been appointed in a matter initiated by a faculty member, the presiding officer shall direct the panel to review the petition and to decide within 10 business days whether, regardless of its validity, it states a frivolous claim or falls outside the grounds for challenge stated in the applicable policy. To make this determination, the panel may, in its discretion, request oral or written statements from the parties to be submitted within 10 business days of the request. Oral statements shall be presented to the opposing party at the same time as the panel and will be recorded. Any party submitting a requested written statement shall copy the opposing party and the administrative officer. If the panel decides that the petition states a frivolous claim or falls outside the grounds for challenge, the panel shall end its review and make its report to the administrative officer. If the panel decides that the petition does not state a frivolous claim and does fall within the grounds of the applicable policy, it shall notify the administrative officer, who shall notify the presiding officer and initiate the proceedings.
2. Submission of preliminary statements in faculty-initiated matter. The administrative officer shall communicate with the parties and direct each party to provide, ordinarily within 10 business days, a preliminary statement which shall include the following:
  1. a statement of the issues of fact or judgment, organized according to each applicable ground for challenge, that identify the points of disagreement between the university and the faculty member;
  2. a list of the relevant non-testimonial evidence each party seeks from the opposing party or from others not party to the dispute;
  3. copies of any relevant non-testimonial evidence in the party's possession, custody, or control; and
  4. the identity of and contact information for witnesses each party plans to call at a hearing.
Compiling the record.
1. Compiling the record in a faculty-initiated matter.
  1. The administrative officer shall obtain the relevant non-testimonial evidence requested by the parties in their preliminary statements. The administrative officer is empowered to request and to receive the cooperation of the Provost, the collegiate dean, the DEO, the grieving faculty member, other faculty members, and other university employees in securing all non-testimonial evidence of reasonably probable relevance to the case. Appropriate evidence may include personnel records concerning teaching, scholarship, or professional service of other faculty members. Faculty members, staff, and officials of the university have a duty to deliver promptly any such documents, including personnel files, that are requested by the administrative officer and otherwise to cooperate with the investigation. Confidentiality of materials used in these proceedings is addressed below.
  2. If the parties dispute the relevance of any document or part of a document, then the administrative officer shall discuss with the parties the possible resolution of the dispute and if no mutual resolution is identified, the administrative officer shall consult with the panel and notify the parties of the determination.
  3. The record shall consist of all the relevant non-testimonial evidence that the administrative officer has obtained for the case.
2. Compiling the record in a Provost-Initiated matter. In any matter initiated by the Provost, the record shall be compiled as follows:
  1. in an ethics and conduct case (III-29.6), the Provost shall provide any investigative findings and the faculty member’s personnel record;
  2. in an unacceptable performance case, the Provost shall provide the record as defined in III-29.5.
3. The administrative officer shall assist the panel as necessary in obtaining, with notice to the faculty member and the Provost, any other relevant non-testimonial evidence the panel may desire before proceeding to hearing. The administrative officer shall also communicate with the faculty member and Provost regarding other hearing activities defined under Rights of the Parties described in paragraph l(6) below. These activities are conducted within the hearing timelines defined below.
Distribution of the record to the parties. The administrative officer shall provide the parties with a copy of the record and any additional submissions by the parties applicable under the procedures.
Confidentiality. The proceedings themselves are confidential, as are the records used in the proceedings. During the investigation, all non-testimonial evidence obtained for a case shall be presumed to be confidential with respect to all persons who do not need to have access to the evidence in performing their duties or exercising their rights under these procedures. To facilitate use of confidential records necessary for the faculty panel’s review and determination while maintaining the confidentiality required, the administrative officer will provide confidentiality agreements for the parties, their legal counsel, and the panel to sign. Notwithstanding such confidentiality agreements, documents that were written with an explicit or implied expectation that they were confidential or would not be revealed to the faculty member shall be made available to the parties only after the name of the author of the document is excised and only, to the maximum extent possible consistent with providing the substance of the contents of the document to the parties, after identifying aspects or portions of the documents have been excised.
Written argument and rebuttal in a faculty-initiated matter. In consultation with the panel, the administrative officer shall direct the parties in a matter initiated by the faculty member to submit to the administrative officer and to the opposing party and counsel their respective argument in writing within 15 business days of receiving the record. In their arguments, the parties shall set forth their respective positions on the opposing party's preliminary statement and on the record provided by the administrative officer. The administrative officer shall permit parties to submit a rebuttal to the argument within 10 business days of receiving the argument. The parameters and schedule of arguments and rebuttal, if submitted, shall be entirely within the discretion of the administrative officer in consultation with the panel. The parties may neither submit any additional evidence, nor any witness statements or affidavits with arguments or rebuttal, although the parties may attach summary exhibits such as charts, tables, or graphs created for purposes of these proceedings.
1. Assistance to the parties. Throughout the investigation, the administrative officer may meet with the parties together or separately and may assist them in complying with the procedural requirements, as seems appropriate to the administrative officer.
2. The administrative officer may extend deadlines for submissions by the parties when doing so, in the administrative officer's judgment, will expedite the case and/or substantially improve the quality of the material presented to the panel.
Report to the panel. All materials shall be delivered to and managed by the administrative officer. The administrative officer shall report to the panel in writing any party’s failure, delay or obstruction related to these procedures. The panel will weigh the concerns accordingly.
Distribution of materials to the panel. The administrative officer shall provide each member of the judicial panel with the record and any preliminary statements, arguments, and rebuttal submitted in response to the administrative officer’s request for them.
Desirability and timing of oral argument and/or hearing. The judicial panel shall hold a hearing and/or entertain oral argument if the panel or either party desires it. In any matter under III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violation, the hearing shall occur no later than 10 business days following assignment of the faculty panel. In all cases, the administrative officer shall impose limitations on the time for argument to the panel. The administrative officer shall advise the parties of the judicial panel's limitations on the factual issues to be considered in any hearing. In any matter other than one under III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violation, the parties and their attorneys shall meet with the administrative officer after arguments and rebuttal, if any, have been submitted, to discuss:
1. the desirability of a hearing before the judicial panel at which oral testimony will be taken from witnesses on one or more of the grounds, and the factual issues to be addressed by such testimony; and
2. the desirability of oral argument by counsel or the parties to the judicial panel regarding the issues presented under one or more of the grounds and the time constraints reasonably to be imposed on such argument.
Communication between the panel and the parties. All communication regarding the case by either party or counsel, to the judicial panel or to any of its members, shall be directed through the administrative officer, except at any hearing held in the case. This rule shall apply even if such communication is responsive to a prior communication from the judicial panel or any of its members. A copy of all communication regarding the case by the judicial panel or any of its members to either party shall be given to the opposing party, all counsel, and the administrative officer.
The nature of the hearing.
1. Closed hearing. The hearing shall be closed to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings. Accordingly, only the following persons may attend: the panel; the parties and their counsel, and the faculty member’s advisor, if any; the administrative officer, the testifying witness, and the recorder of the proceedings.
2. Recording. The hearing shall be video recorded. The administrative officer shall ensure that the recording process maintains the confidentiality of the evidence, and that the resulting recording is maintained in a secure manner, protecting its confidentiality. The record of the hearing may, at the discretion of the panel, exclude the discussion of procedural matters. Either party or the panel may request that the proceedings also be recorded by a stenographic reporter and/or transcribed. The party requesting such additional recording or transcription shall bear its cost; if the panel requests it, then the office of the administrative officer shall bear its cost.
3. Confidentiality. All testimony shall be presumed to be confidential with respect to all persons who do not need to have access to that information in performing their duties.
4. Sequestration of witnesses. Witnesses shall be sequestered from the hearing when not testifying.
5. Right to advisor. The faculty member may be accompanied by another faculty member of their choice, who shall take the role of advisor. A witness shall not serve as an advisor. If the faculty member has an advisor (other than or in addition to an attorney), the advisor shall not communicate with the panel or any of its members about any aspect of the case at any time, whether orally or otherwise, while the matter is pending; and shall comply with the confidentiality provisions and all other provisions in these procedures.
6. Rights of the parties. Subject to paragraph l(7) below, each party shall have the following rights:
  1. to decide which witnesses to call to testify on behalf of that party;
  2. to present evidence through the testimony of a party's own witnesses;
  3. to present any other relevant evidence;
  4. to cross-examine any witness called by the other party;
  5. to make an opening statement before and a closing argument after the presentation of evidence;
  6. to be consulted and to present oral and/or written argument for the purpose of influencing any decision made by the administrative officer in the exercise of the administrative officer's authority to control the hearing.
7. Administrative officer rights and responsibilities. The administrative officer shall have the authority to control the hearing, in consultation with the panel, including but not limited to the authority:
  1. to ask questions of any witness after the parties have completed questioning of that witness;
  2. to limit the presentation of evidence on grounds of irrelevancy or redundancy when necessary to avoid an excessively long hearing, but the administrative officer shall not exclude evidence on the basis of formal rules of evidence that would govern a judicial proceeding;
  3. to limit the length of opening statements and closing arguments;
  4. to limit the length of the parties’ written arguments, if any;
  5. to set the date, time, and place for conducting the hearing, including the beginning, ending, adjournment, and any reopening, in the interest of expediting the proceeding and accommodating the convenience of the parties; and
  6. to take such action as seems appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of marked documents or other confidential matters as reasonably appropriate consistent with a full opportunity of each party to present and access relevant evidence.
8. Panel authority and responsibilities. The panel shall have the authority to ask questions of any witness. The judicial panel shall make findings of fact and shall draw conclusions based on those findings, consistent with the burdens of proof and standards of judgment, as provided below.
Burden of proof and standard of judgment in proceedings initiated by the faculty member. The faculty member bears the burden of proof in all cases challenging denial of reappointment, tenure, or promotion under III-29.3 and all grievances under III-29.4. The standards of judgment applicable to the grounds in those proceedings are set forth below.
1. Violation of a university obligation.
  1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground:
    1. in the case of reappointment, tenure, or promotion, the faculty member must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that on the basis of a written promise to the faculty member by an authorized administrator of the university, the faculty member was justified in believing that reappointment, tenure, or promotion would be granted on the basis of the faculty member's acknowledged accomplishments and that the faculty member relied detrimentally on that promise.
    2. in a case under the Grievance procedure, the faculty member must show by preponderance of the evidence that the university decision had a substantial impact on the faculty member’s position.
  2. The faculty member must either present in evidence the written document or documents upon which the claim of a violation of a University obligation is based or else justify the failure to do so. If the faculty member shows only, or the panel otherwise finds, that the promise was conditional on adequate performance or some other requirement whose satisfaction is independently at issue, the panel shall not find in favor of the faculty member on this ground.
  3. If the panel finds in favor of the faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that the faculty member be granted reappointment, tenure, or promotion as appropriate. In a Grievance case, the university decision must be remedied as appropriate.
2. Clearly adequate record of achievement.
  1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the faculty member's record of achievement justifies reappointment, tenure, or promotion as the case may be. Thus, the panel shall sustain the challenged decision unless the panel is of a firm and definite conviction based on the faculty member's record that denying the faculty member such tenure, promotion, or reappointment was unjustified.
  2. The panel shall judge the merits of a claim of a clearly adequate record of achievement in the case of a reappointment, tenure, or promotion decision in accordance with the provisions of III-10 In the absence of written standards,
  3. the panel shall deem the standards to be those that prevailed in comparable decisions concerning other faculty members. The panel may also consider comparable decisions concerning other faculty members during the period of the faculty member’s appointment in interpreting and applying written standards.
  4. The panel shall give great weight to the written assessments in the record of persons knowledgeable in the faculty's member's teaching area, field of research or comparable activity, or area of professional service, to the extent such person's knowledge is relevant to evaluating the judgments underlying the decision being reviewed.
  5. If the panel finds in favor of the faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that the faculty member be granted reappointment, tenure, or promotion as appropriate.
3. Improper procedure.
  1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member initially must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that in the actions leading to the decision by the University to deny reappointment, tenure, or promotion to the faculty member, there occurred a significant violation of an established university procedure. The panel must find in favor of a faculty member who meets this initial burden, unless the university shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the significant procedural violation did not affect or could not have affected the decision.
  2. If the panel finds in favor of the faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that a reconsideration of the original decision to deny the faculty member reappointment, tenure, or promotion be undertaken, starting at the lowest level at which an evaluation or recommendation or written report could have been affected by the use of improper procedures.
    1. Such reconsideration shall be based on the faculty member's record at the time of the original consideration; and
    2. The faculty member's probationary appointment shall be extended as necessary to allow such reconsideration, provided, however, that such an extension of time shall not subject the faculty member on reconsideration to heightened standards regarding quantity of scholarship.
4. Unfair Impediment.
  1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show, by the preponderance of the evidence:
    1. in a case involving reappointment, tenure, or promotion, that an unfair impediment, for which the university or one of its officers was responsible, substantially affected the faculty member's ability to meet established standards as it relates to reappointment, tenure, or promotion.
    2. in a case under the Grievance procedure, both that the decision significantly impairs the ability of the faculty member to do what is ordinarily expected in their role; and that the decision is not significantly related either to any reasonable institutional need or to the faculty member’s performance.
  2. If the panel finds in favor of the faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that a new consideration whether to grant the faculty member reappointment, tenure, or promotion be undertaken, starting at the beginning of the evaluation process on the basis of the record then achieved by the faculty member; and that the faculty member's probationary appointment be extended as necessary to remove the effect of the impediment and to allow such reconsideration without subjecting the faculty member to heightened standards regarding quantity of scholarship.
  3. In a case under the Grievance procedure, the administration shall be responsible for the removal of the impediment to allow the faculty member to continue their work.
5. Violation of academic freedom.
  1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the faculty member must show, by a preponderance of the evidence:
    1. In a case of reappointment, tenure, or promotion, that the decision was substantially affected by a violation of academic freedom as referenced in the Board of Regents Policy Manual.
    2. In a case under the Grievance procedure, that the administrative decision violated the faculty member’s academic freedom.
  2. If the panel finds in favor of the faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend:
    1. In a case of reappointment, tenure, or promotion, that a reconsideration of the original decision shall be undertaken, starting at the lowest level at which a violation of academic freedom substantially affected the decision; and that an extension of the faculty member's probationary appointment be granted as necessary to make such reconsideration possible.
    2. In a case under the Grievance procedure, that the administration shall reconsider any decisions that impacted a faculty member's academic freedom.
Burden of proof and standard of judgment in proceedings initiated by the Provost. The university bears the burden of proof in all cases under III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violations and III-29.5 Unacceptable Performance Warranting Termination. The respective standards of judgment applicable in those proceedings are set forth below.
1. Ethics and conduct violation. In any case before the Faculty Judicial Commission under the procedures in III-29.6, the university must establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Unacceptable performance. In any case before the Faculty Judicial Commission under the procedures in III-29.5, the university must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the faculty member’s unacceptable performance of duty warrants termination. If the faculty member has alleged violation of academic freedom as a defense to the claim of unacceptable performance, then the faculty member shall bear the burden of proving that defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
Report of the panel.
1. The panel shall make its determination in a written report that shall be prepared and sent to the administrative officer as soon as possible but no more than 20 business days after the conclusion of the investigation and hearing, except in the case of a proceeding initiated by the Provost under III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violations, in which the written report shall be prepared and sent to the administrative officer within 10 business days after the conclusion of the hearing.
2. In preparing its report, the panel in its discretion may seek the assistance of the administrative officer.
3. The panel’s report shall be written in a manner that satisfies the requirement of protecting confidentiality as reasonably appropriate.
4. The report shall contain findings of fact and conclusions drawn from those findings as well as the panel's determination, if any.
5. In addition, in a case initiated by a faculty member:
  1. If the panel has found in favor of the faculty member on any ground in a case initiated by a faculty member, it may, in addition to its determination on the main issue, recommend other actions, except for the payment of counsel fees, that it judges to be required by the equities of the case.
  2. The report shall include findings of fact and conclusions drawn from those findings that resolve each ground raised by the faculty member, even if the conclusion reached on one ground is sufficient to support the Panel's recommendation. The report shall specifically include:
    1. a specific statement of each ground raised by the faculty member;
    2. a specific statement of the burden of proof governing each ground raised by the faculty member;
    3. an opinion explaining the reasons for the panel's determination and recommendations, if any, based on the findings of fact, the burden of proof and standard of judgment applicable to each ground raised by the faculty member;
    4. in a case based in whole or part on the Clearly Adequate Record of Achievement ground, a description of any assessment by knowledgeable persons contained in the record and an explanation of the weight given by the panel to any such assessment.
Distribution of the panel report. On receiving the panel’s report, the administrative officer shall send copies of it to the faculty member, the DEO, the collegiate dean, the Provost, and legal counsel for the parties. In any case initiated by the university, and in a case initiated by the faculty member in which the panel has found in favor of the faculty member on any ground, the administrative officer also shall send a copy of the panel’s report to the President, notifying the parties, their legal counsel, and the panel of the transmission.
Closure on determination against faculty member. If the panel in a case initiated by a faculty member did not find in favor of the faculty member on any ground, the case is then closed, and the panel’s determination shall be considered final institutional action subject to review, if any, by the Board of Regents pursuant to its policies and procedures.
The President's decision. In any case initiated by the Provost and in a case initiated by a faculty member in which the panel has found in favor of the faculty member on any ground, the President of the university shall decide whether to implement the panel’s determination. The administrative officer shall provide the President with the parties’ preliminary statements, arguments and rebuttal, if any; the record; and the videorecording of the hearing; as well as any additional materials that the panel received or considered in the course of its review. All of these materials together shall constitute the case materials.
1. Basis for President's decision. The President's decision shall be based on the case materials. The President shall not hold a hearing but may meet with the panel. Furthermore, either party may submit a brief to the President, copying the administrative officer, the opposing party and legal counsel, within 5 business days of receiving notice that the administrative officer has transmitted the panel's report to the President. In making the decision, the President shall give great weight to the findings and determination of the panel. Like the panel, the President shall be bound by the burdens of proof and standards of judgment in the applicable policy.
2. President accepts all panel determinations. If the President accepts all the panel's findings and determinations, the President shall direct that the panel's determination be implemented. The President shall so inform the administrative officer and panel in writing no later than ten business days after receiving the panel’s decision. The administrative officer shall send copies of the President's final decision to the faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Provost, legal counsel for the parties, each of the members of the panel, and the presiding officer.
3. President does not accept the panel's determination:
  1. In a case challenging denial of reappointment, tenure, or promotion under III-29.3, a grievance under III-29.4, or unacceptable performance under III- 29.5. If the President does not accept one or more of the recommendations of the panel, the President shall inform the panel members in writing of the reasons for not accepting the panel's recommendation, copying the parties and their legal counsel, the presiding officer and the administrative officer. Within 5 days of receiving the President's decision, either party may submit a brief to the administrative officer for the panel's consideration. The administrative officer shall send copies of any brief so submitted to the opposing party and their legal counsel, each member of the judicial panel and the presiding officer. The panel then shall reconsider its recommendations and report the result of its reconsideration to the President in a supplementary written report within 10 business days of the date on which the panel receives the President's letter or the parties' briefs, whichever is later, copying the parties and their legal counsel, the presiding officer and the administrative officer. The President then shall make a final decision on the matter. In making this final decision, the President shall give great weight to the views of the panel.
    1. After panel reconsideration, President decides against faculty member. If, after reviewing the panel reconsideration, the President decides against the faculty member on all grounds, the President shall inform the panel members in writing, copying the administrative officer, of the final decision and of any additional reasons supporting the decision. The administrative officer shall send copies of the President's final decision and reasons to the parties and their legal counsel, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, and the presiding officer.
    2. After panel reconsideration, President accepts at least one, but not all, recommendations in favor of faculty member. If, after reviewing the panel reconsideration, the President accepts at least one, but not all, of the panel's recommendations in favor of the faculty member, the President shall direct that those recommendations that the President accepts be implemented. The President shall inform the panel members in writing, copying the administrative officer, of those recommendations that the President accepts, and of those that the President does not accept, and of any additional reasons supporting the decision. The administrative officer shall send copies of the President's final decision to the parties and their legal counsel, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, and the presiding officer.
  2. In a case arising under III-29.6 Ethics and Conduct Violations. If the President does not accept one or more of the panel’s determinations, the President shall consult with the panel to address the points of disagreement. This consultation shall occur no earlier than 10 business days after receiving the faculty panel's report so that the President will have considered the parties' briefs, if any. The President then shall make a final decision on the matter within 20 business days following receipt of the panel’s report. In making this final decision, the President shall give great weight to the views of the panel.
    1. After panel consultation, President decides against faculty member. If, after panel consultation, the President decides against the faculty member on all grounds, the President shall inform the panel members in writing, copying the administrative officer, of the final decision and reasons supporting the decision. The administrative officer shall send copies of the President's final decision and reasons to the parties, their legal counsel, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Provost, and the presiding officer.
    2. After panel consultation, President accepts at least one, but not all, determinations in favor of faculty member. If, after panel consultation, the President accepts at least one, but not all, of the panel's determinations in favor of the faculty member, the President shall direct that the accepted determination(s) be implemented. The President shall inform the panel members in writing of the determination(s) that the President accepts, and of the determination(s) the President does not accept, and of the reasons supporting the decision. The President shall send a copy of the decision to the administrative officer. The administrative officer shall send copies of the President's final decision to the parties, their legal counsel, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Provost, and the presiding officer.
4. The President’s decision shall be considered final institutional action, and the case will then be closed. The decision may be subject to review, if any, by the Board of Regents pursuant to its policies and procedures.

29.8 Specialized-Faculty Grievances

Scope. The procedures described in this section constitute the exclusive remedy within the university for a specialized faculty member who wishes to challenge the legitimacy of a university administrative decision (general grievance) or an administrative decision that substantially affects the faculty member’s terms and conditions of appointment (qualifying employment decision as specified below). Specialized faculty members are instructional, clinical, and research-track faculty members as defined in III-10.
Qualifying employment decisions. Specialized faculty may dispute and seek review of the following decisions ("decisions") by departmental, division, collegiate, and/or Provost-level administration:
1. Termination during term of appointment;
2. Not to promote to a higher rank after a promotion review has been completed;
3. Not to renew an appointment.
Burden of proof and standard of judgment. The Specialized faculty member has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence in all cases. The faculty member’s documents requesting review of a decision will clearly articulate the basis for their challenge, which may include grounds described in III-29.7 for tenure-track cases.
Applicable review procedures. A specialized faculty member may only initiate one of the procedural challenges listed here to contest an administrative decision.
1. Administrative review [III-29.8(1)] – Available to all specialized faculty and the exclusive remedy for specialized faculty in their initial probationary appointment. Administrative review is also the only review option for faculty grievances that fall outside the scope of qualifying employment decisions defined above (III-29.8b). Faculty beyond their probationary appointment can use administrative review or peer review to dispute the outcome of a qualifying employment decision.
2. Peer review [III-29.8(2)] – Available to specialized faculty who have completed the probationary period. The peer review can only be used by a specialized faculty member to dispute a qualifying employment decision.
Timing. A specialized faculty member wishing to challenge an administrative decision is encouraged to resolve the matter through informal discussions with the decision maker. Unless both parties agree, the timing for formal actions described below will not be suspended while informal discussions take place.
Review of specialized faculty grievance review procedures. These new specialized faculty review procedures will be reviewed by the Faculty Senate in consultation with the Provost and General Counsel five years after their initial implementation. This review will assess the impact on specialized faculty due-process protections and identify whether any components of the review processes described below need modification, revision, additional detail, or clarification.

29.8(1) Administrative Review Procedures

If the matter is not resolved informally, the specialized faculty member may challenge an administrative decision by completing the Specialized Faculty Administrative Review (SFAR) form and detailing the basis for the challenge and the action/remedy requested. The specialized faculty member shall submit the SFAR form by email to the appropriate party (see below) no later than 15 business days after formal notification of the administrative decision giving rise to their challenge.
Appeal of department-level decisions. A specialized faculty member may seek review of a department level decision by submitting an SFAR form to their collegiate dean. All references to the dean under these procedures shall include the dean’s designee.
Dean’s review. The dean shall issue a written response to the challenge within 15 business days from receipt of the SFAR form. The dean’s review will include consultation and input from parties with relevant information to resolve the challenge. The dean shall decide on the merits of the faculty member’s challenge, complete the SFAR form with their decision and rationale, and send the completed SFAR form by email to the specialized faculty member with copies to other appropriate administrators.
Appeal of dean’s review decision. The specialized faculty member may appeal the dean’s review decision by sending the completed SFAR form with a written request for review and explanation of the basis for their challenge to the Provost within 10 business days after they officially receive the dean’s decision. The Provost will review the information provided, consult as needed with other parties to obtain additional relevant information, and issue a written decision to the challenge within 15 business days of receiving the SFAR form. The Provost will send the completed SFAR form to the specialized faculty member with copies to other appropriate administrators.
If a specialized faculty member wishes to challenge a collegiate-level initiated decision, they will send a completed SFAR form to the Provost following timing and guidance described in paragraph b above and the Provost will provide a decision as described in III-29.8g.
Final university action. The Provost decision shall constitute final university action on the matter, and the specialized faculty member may appeal to the Board of Regents, State of Iowa, pursuant to its policies and procedures.

29.8(2) Peer Review Procedures

Initiating the process. As defined in III-29.8 above, non-probationary specialized faculty members wishing to challenge a qualifying employment decision may submit a written challenge (by email) to the Provost, attaching the challenged decision, and describing the basis for their challenge and the action/remedy requested, no later than 15 business days following the formal notification to the faculty member of the final decision giving rise to the challenge. The Provost shall forward the written challenge to the collegiate dean and presiding officer of the Judicial Commission within 5 business days.
Faculty peer review committee. Within 10 business days of being notified of the specialized faculty member’s challenge, the presiding officer of the Judicial Commission shall form a faculty committee to review the challenge. The committee shall be comprised of three faculty members from the Faculty Judicial Commission selected by the presiding officer using the same guidance described in 2III-9.7 and avoiding any conflicts of interest:
1. All committee members shall be at an Associate Professor or higher rank;
2. At least one committee member shall be from a specialized track and least one committee member shall be a tenured faculty member;
3. If feasible, one committee member shall be a specialized faculty member in the same track and from the same college as the specialized faculty member filing the challenge;
4. No more than two committee members may be from the same college and no committee member may be from the same department or division as the specialized faculty member filing the challenge;
5. For promotion disputes, all committee members shall be at higher rank than the specialized faculty member filing the challenge;
6. The specialized faculty member filing the challenge or the Provost may submit written requests to not assign specific Judicial Commission members to the committee for cause;
7. The committee selection will be determined by lot or equivalent random manner from a list of available Judicial Commission members and using the listed guidance as detailed above; and
8. Either party may challenge a member of the Peer Review Committee who has been appointed, for a cause that becomes known to the party after the committee member’s appointment. The party must raise such a challenge with the presiding officer, who will determine, in consultation with the administrative officer, the appropriate manner for addressing the challenge.
The Faculty Peer Review Committee may meet with the specialized faculty member within 10 business days of the committee’s appointment. This meeting may be at the request of the review committee or specialized faculty member filing the challenge. In this meeting, the faculty member may provide additional context and support for their challenge and may submit relevant supplemental materials related directly to the decision. The Faculty Peer Review Committee also will obtain relevant information from the collegiate dean, Provost, and other appropriate sources to inform their review process. All documentation and faculty responses produced and used in arriving at the challenged university decision will be provided to the committee by the Provost. The committee may seek procedural guidance from the presiding officer, who may consult with the administrative officer.
Committee consideration and recommendation. The Peer Review Committee shall carefully review the challenge and supporting materials and consult as needed with other parties on the appropriate recommendations to be provided. The committee shall complete a concise written report within 15 business days after meeting with the faculty member, if such a meeting occurred, or otherwise within 20 business days of receiving the challenge and supporting documentation. For the committee to recommend reversal of an administrative decision, the standard of proof is by clear and convincing evidence. The committee should use (as appropriate) report preparation guidance provided in III-29.7 for tenure-track policies when preparing their report. The committee will submit its report to the Provost who will provide a copy to the faculty member. The faculty member has the option to provide a written response to the committee report within 5 business days of receiving the report from the Provost.
Provost review and decision. The Provost shall review the Peer Review Committee’s report and recommendation, giving it due consideration, and shall issue a final written decision within 15 business days after receiving the committee’s report, copying the faculty member, the dean, and other appropriate parties. The Provost may consult, as needed, with any other parties to obtain additional relevant information. The final decision’s scope is at the discretion of the Provost and may uphold all or part of prior administrative decisions and may include remedies such as re-review of prior decisions made at departmental, collegiate, or Provost levels.
Final university action. A determination of the Provost shall constitute final university action on the matter, and the faculty member may seek appeal before the Board of Regents, State of Iowa, pursuant to its policies and procedures.

29.9 Research Ethics Violation

If, pursuant to II-27.6 Ethics in Research, a determination is made that the investigation findings warrant further action, the following procedures shall apply:

Provost-proposed sanction. Any internal university sanction to be imposed shall be imposed initially by the Provost. In doing so, the Provost shall consider the totality of the record made in the initial inquiry conducted by the Research Integrity Officer, together with the Research Misconduct Committee written report of the findings from its own investigation. The Provost shall accept the findings of the Research Misconduct Committee and shall determine an appropriate sanction to be imposed. The Provost shall notify the faculty member of any sanction so determined.
Faculty member's option. The faculty member may accept or reject the proposal of the Provost. If the faculty member accepts the proposal of the Provost, it shall be implemented and the case shall be closed. If the faculty member rejects the proposal, then the Provost shall issue a Notice of Rejected Sanction to both the presiding and administrative officers. The presiding officer shall appoint the panel. The administrative officer shall compile the record as detailed in II-27.6. The case shall proceed to a faculty panel solely for its recommendation for any appropriate sanction to be imposed. The faculty panel shall be appointed within 3 university business days pursuant to the procedures stated under III-29.3 Faculty Judicial Commission.
Faculty panel's review. The faculty panel shall not hold an evidentiary hearing, and it shall not reconsider the Research Misconduct Committee's finding that further personnel action is warranted. Rather, the faculty panel shall be bound by the findings of the Research Misconduct Committee. The faculty panel shall consider the totality of the record made in the investigation conducted by the Research Integrity Officer, together with the Research Misconduct Committee's written report of its findings from that investigation. The faculty panel may hear argument by the accused faculty member and the Provost and their respective counsel.
Faculty panel's report recommending sanction. The faculty panel shall present its recommendations regarding any appropriate sanction in a written report within 20 business days. In a case arising under II-27.6 Ethics in Research, the presiding officer also shall send copies of the report to the Vice President for Research.
President's review. Within 20 business days of receiving the panel report, the President shall determine what sanction, if any, the university shall impose. In no case shall the President reconsider the findings of the Research Misconduct Committee. The President's decision shall be based on: 1) the record made in the initial inquiry conducted by the Research Integrity Officer; 2) the Research Misconduct Committee's written report of its findings from its own investigation; and 3) the faculty panel's report recommending sanctions. Either party may submit a brief to the President within 10 business days of receiving notice that the presiding officer has transmitted the panel's report to the President.

If the President accepts all of the faculty panel's recommendations regarding sanctions, the President shall direct that the panel's recommendations be implemented. The President shall so inform the presiding officer in writing. The presiding officer shall send copies of the President's final decision to the faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the provost, the members of the panel, and the administrative officer. The case will then be closed.

If the President does not accept one or more of the faculty panel's recommendations regarding sanctions, the President shall inform the panel members in writing of the reasons for not accepting such finding(s) and/or recommendation(s) and shall send a copy thereof to the faculty member, the academic officer, the presiding officer and the administrative officer. Within 5 days of receiving the President's decision, the faculty member and the Provost each may submit a brief to the administrative officer for the panel's consideration. The administrative officer shall send copies of any brief so submitted to the opposing party, each member of the judicial panel and the presiding officer. The panel then shall reconsider its findings and recommendations and shall report the result of its reconsideration to the President in a supplementary written report. The panel shall send copies of its report to the parties, the presiding officer and the administrative officer. The panel shall respond within 10 business days of the date on which the panel's chair receives the President's letter or the parties' briefs, whichever is later. Within 5 days of receiving the panel's report, the faculty member and the Provost each may submit a brief to the President, with copies to the opposing party, the presiding officer, and the administrative officer. The President then shall make a final decision on the matter. In making this final decision, the President shall give great weight to the views of the panel.
1. President rejects all findings and/or recommendations. If, after reconsideration, the President rejects all of the panel's findings and/or recommendations for sanctions, the President shall inform the panel members in writing of the final decision and of any additional reasons supporting the decision and shall send a copy thereof to the presiding officer. The presiding officer shall send copies of the President's final decision and reasons to the faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Provost, members of the panel, and the administrative officer. The case will then be closed, subject only to further review by the Board of Regents.
2. After reconsideration, President accepts at Least one, but not all, finding(s) and/or recommendation(s). If, after reconsideration, the President accepts at least one, but not all, of the panel's findings and/or recommendations for sanctions, the President shall direct that those recommendations that the President accepts be implemented. The President shall inform the panel members in writing of those findings and/or recommendations that the President accepts, and of those that the President does not accept, and of any additional reasons supporting the decision. The President shall send a copy of the decision to the presiding officer. The presiding officer shall send copies of the President's final decision to the faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Provost, the university representative, and the administrative officer. The case will then be closed, subject only to a decision by the Board of Regents.

Policy Manual

Chapter 29 – Faculty Dispute Procedures