29.9 Clinical Faculty Member Termination or Denial of Promotion or Reappointment

(Amended 9/16)
  1. Introduction.
    1. Scope. The procedures described in this section constitute the exclusive remedy within the University for a salaried clinical faculty member who wishes to challenge a decision by the University to terminate or to deny promotion or reappointment to the clinical faculty member. A clinical faculty member may challenge the University's administrative action or non-action by following the procedures set forth in III-29.6. The procedures for determination of unethical conduct by a clinical faculty member are governed by III-29.7. The University's general policy regarding clinical faculty members is stated in III-10.9.
    2. Grounds for a Challenge to a Decision to Deny Initial Reappointment. A challenge by a clinical faculty member to a decision by the University to deny reappointment before the clinical faculty member has received a successful three-year review 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 to the clinical faculty member by an authorized administrator of the University;
      2. Clearly Adequate Record of Achievement: that the decision is unjustified in view of the clinical faculty member's clearly adequate record of achievement under governing standards of the department or other academic unit in question;
      3. Improper Reason: That the decision was based in part or in whole on the clinical faculty member's race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, genetic information, status as a U.S. veteran, service in the U.S. military, sexual orientation, gender identity, associational preferences, or other characteristic that should be irrelevant to the decision, or for a reason that violates the clinical faculty member's academic freedom;
      4. Improper Procedure: that the decision was made without reasonable consultation with the faculty colleagues of the clinical faculty member as required by the University, college, or department, or in a way that violates some other established University, college, or department procedures;
      5. Unfair Impediment: that the decision was the result of a failure of the clinical faculty member to meet the requirements for reappointment due to an unfair impediment for which the University or one of its officers is responsible.
    3. Grounds for a Challenge to a Decision to Deny Promotion. A challenge by a clinical faculty member to a decision by the University to deny promotion may be made only on one or more of the grounds which are identified as follows:
      1. Violation of a University Obligation: that the decision was made in violation of a written promise of promotion to the clinical faculty member by an authorized administrator of the University;
      2. Clearly Adequate Record of Achievement: that the decision is unjustified in view of the clinical faculty member's clearly adequate record of achievement under governing standards of the department or other academic unit in question;
      3. Improper Reason: That the decision was based in part or in whole on the clinical faculty member's race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, genetic information, status as a U.S. veteran, service in the U.S. military, sexual orientation, gender identity, associational preferences, or other characteristic that should be irrelevant to the decision, or for a reason that violates the clinical faculty member's academic freedom;
      4. Improper Procedure: that the decision was made without reasonable consultation with the faculty colleagues of the clinical faculty member as required by the University, college, or department, or in a way that violates some other established University, college, or department procedures;
      5. Unfair Impediment: that the decision was the result of a failure of the clinical faculty member to meet the requirements for promotion due to an unfair impediment for which the University or one of its officers is responsible.
    4. Ground for a Challenge to a Decision to Terminate or to Deny Subsequent Reappointment. A challenge by a clinical faculty member to a decision by the University to terminate the clinical faculty member during the term of appointment, or to deny reappointment after the clinical faculty member has received at least one successful three-year review, may be made only on the ground of Lack of Justification: that the decision is not consistent with the standards set forth under III-10.9h(1)(a) or (b).
    5. Stages in These Procedures. The stages in the procedures in a clinical faculty member's challenge to a decision by the University to terminate or to deny promotion or reappointment to the clinical faculty member are:
      1. Informal Discussions
      2. Request for a Written Statement of Reasons
      3. Investigation, hearing, and faculty judicial panel recommendation
      4. President's Decision
  2. Informal Discussions. A clinical faculty member who wishes to challenge a decision by the University to terminate or to deny promotion or reappointment to the clinical faculty member may begin the challenge by attempting to settle the matter informally through discussions with the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, and the Academic Officer. In any such informal discussion, the clinical faculty member may be accompanied by legal counsel and/or another faculty member of his or her choice. As a part of the informal discussion stage, either party may request the services of the Office of the University Ombudsperson (see VI-2).
  3. Request for a Written Statement of Reasons. Upon learning of the decision of the University to terminate or to deny promotion or reappointment to the clinical faculty member, the collegiate dean shall promptly, in writing, officially inform the clinical faculty member of the decision and of the clinical faculty member's right to challenge that decision under these regulations and shall include a copy of these regulations as part of that official information.

    A clinical faculty member who wishes to pursue a challenge to a decision by the University to terminate or to deny promotion or reappointment to the clinical faculty member beyond the stage of informal discussions, whether or not such informal discussions have taken place or are continuing, must, within thirty business days of having been informed officially of the decision by the collegiate dean, request of the Academic Officer a written statement of the reasons for the decision. The Academic Officer shall inform the clinical faculty member in writing and in reasonable detail of the reason or reasons for the decision by the University, and this written statement of reasons shall be provided, ordinarily, within twenty business days of receiving the faculty member's request.

  4. The Nature of the Investigation.
    1. Request for an Investigation. If the written statement of reasons does not settle the matter to the clinical faculty member's satisfaction and the clinical faculty member wishes to pursue the challenge, the clinical faculty member may request an investigation. This request must be made within twenty business days after the clinical faculty member receives the written statement of reasons. The request shall be directed to the Presiding Officer of the Faculty Judicial Commission who shall forward copies of the request to the clinical faculty member's departmental executive officer, and the Academic Officer. In the request, the clinical faculty member must attach a copy of the collegiate dean's official notice, a copy of the clinical faculty member's request for a statement of reasons, and a copy of the Academic Officer's statement of reasons and must specify the ground or grounds for the challenge with as much specificity as possible on the basis of evidence or information available to the clinical faculty member when the request is submitted.
    2. Appointment of the Panel. After the Presiding Officer receives the Request for an Investigation, the Presiding Officer shall appoint a faculty judicial panel to review and decide the case. The Presiding Officer also shall promptly notify the Investigating Officer to begin the investigation into the merits of the case.
    3. Stay of Proceedings. The Presiding Officer shall have the power to suspend the deadlines specified under this section or to stay any proceeding under this section when requested to do so in writing by either or both parties or the Ombudsperson and when, in the judgment of the Presiding Officer, the resulting delay would significantly advance the possibility of achieving an agreed-upon settlement by the parties.
    4. Submission of Preliminary Statements. The Investigating Officer shall begin the investigation by requesting each party to provide, within ten business days of the request, a Preliminary Statement which shall include the following:
      1. a statement of the issues of fact or judgment, segregated according to the applicable Ground for Challenge, that identify any point or points of disagreement between the University and the clinical faculty member;
      2. a list of the relevant non-testimonial evidence which 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 and location of witnesses each party plans to call.
    5. Obtaining the Evidence.
      1. Based on the information received under paragraph (4) above, the Investigating Officer shall obtain the relevant non-testimonial evidence requested by the parties in their Preliminary Statements. The Investigating Officer is empowered to request and to receive the cooperation of the Academic Officer, the collegiate dean, the departmental executive officer, the grieving clinical faculty member, other faculty members, and other University employees and to request and to receive from such persons all non-testimonial evidence of possible relevance to the case, including personnel records concerning teaching or professional service of other clinical faculty members. Absent a showing of particular relevance, only the personnel records of clinical faculty members, and not those of tenure-track faculty members, shall be used in cases under this Section III-29.9. Faculty members, staff, students, and officials of the University have a duty to deliver promptly any such documents, including personnel files that are requested by the Investigating Officer and otherwise to cooperate with the investigation.
      2. If the parties dispute the relevance of any document or part of a document, then the Investigating Officer shall discuss with the parties the possible resolution of the dispute and try to reach an agreement. If no agreement can be reached, then the document or part thereof in question shall be provided to the panel pursuant to the procedures under III-29.9d(11), together with each party's brief statement regarding its relevance.
    6. Distribution of Materials to the Parties. The Investigating Officer shall provide each party with a copy of the opposing party's Preliminary Statement submitted under paragraph (4) above. The Investigating Officer also shall provide the parties with a copy of all the relevant non-testimonial evidence that the Investigating Officer has obtained under paragraph (5) above.
    7. Confidentiality. 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 regulations. Prior to the beginning of a hearing or the termination of the panel's responsibilities, whichever occurs first, each party shall be afforded an opportunity to designate evidence or portions of evidence that should continue to be regarded as confidential, and this evidence shall be so marked. Neither party may disseminate or allow to be disseminated any evidence presumed or marked as confidential under this paragraph while a case is pending or after the case has been completed. 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 or authors 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.
    8. Final Statements.
      1. The parties shall submit to the Investigating Officer and to the opposing party and counsel their respective Final Statements in writing according to the schedule set forth below. In their Final Statements, the parties shall set forth their respective positions on the opposing party's Preliminary Statement and on the evidence provided by the Investigating Officer.
      2. The clinical faculty member shall submit his or her Final Statement first, within fifteen business days following his or her receipt of the non-testimonial evidence. Within fifteen business days following the University's receipt of the clinical faculty member's Final Statement, the University shall submit its Final Statement, which may respond to the arguments raised in the clinical faculty member's Final Statement.
      3. The clinical faculty member may submit a written Rebuttal to the University's Final Statement, provided that the clinical faculty member does so within ten business days following the clinical faculty member's receipt of the University's Final Statement. If submitted, the Rebuttal shall be limited to the arguments raised in the University's Final Statement.
      4. The parties may not submit any additional pre-existing evidence with their Final Statements or Rebuttal, although they may attach exhibits such as charts, tables, graphs or summaries created for purposes of these proceedings. No witness statements or affidavits may be submitted with these Final Statements or Rebuttal.
    9. Assistance to the Parties. Throughout the investigation, the Investigating Officer may meet with the parties together or separately and may assist them in complying with the requirements of paragraph (5) above, as the Investigating Officer deems appropriate. The Investigating Officer may extend deadlines for submissions by the parties (under paragraphs (4) and (8) above) when doing so, in the Investigating Officer's judgment, will expedite the case and/or improve the quality of the material presented to the panel.
    10. Report to the Panel. The Investigating Officer shall report to the panel in writing, with copies to the parties and counsel, any failure, delay or other obstruction by a party in any part of these procedures and shall indicate to the panel whether the failure, delay or obstruction appears to be justifiable. Taking into account the Investigating Officer's report concerning the failure, delay or obstruction, the panel may draw negative inferences and take appropriate action on the basis of a failure of a party to provide relevant documents or other materials or information. Excessive delays or other obstruction to providing documents or other materials or information may be treated by the panel as a failure to provide the document. The parties shall not submit any response to the report to the Panel.
    11. Distribution of Materials to the Panel. The Investigating Officer shall provide each member of the Judicial Panel with:
      1. a copy of the Preliminary Statements submitted under paragraph (4) above;
      2. a copy of the Final Statements submitted under paragraph (8) above;
      3. a copy of any item of the relevant non-testimonial evidence the Investigating Officer has obtained under paragraph (5) above which either party has referenced in its Final Statement or Rebuttal submitted under paragraph (8) above; and
      4. access to a complete copy of all the relevant non-testimonial evidence the Investigating Officer has obtained under paragraph (5) above.
    12. Conference Regarding a Hearing. After Final Statements and the Rebuttal, if any, have been submitted, the parties and their attorneys shall meet with the Investigating Officer 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.

      The judicial panel shall hold a hearing and/or entertain oral argument if the panel or either party desires it. The Investigating Officer, in consultation with the panel, shall impose any limitations on the factual issues to be considered in a hearing and on the time for argument to the panel.

    13. Communication between the Panel and the Parties. All communication regarding the matter in dispute by the Judicial Panel or any of its members to either party shall copy the opposing party, all counsel and the Investigating Officer. All communication regarding the matter in dispute by either party or counsel, to the Judicial Panel or to any of its members, shall be directed through the Investigating 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.
  5. The Nature of the Hearing.
    1. Open Hearing. The hearing shall be open unless:
      1. both parties request that it be closed, in which case it shall be closed; or
      2. it is necessary to close the hearing temporarily to preserve the confidentiality of documents or other matters or to protect witnesses who fear reprisals.

      The decision to close the hearing for any of the reasons specified in this paragraph shall be made by the Investigating Officer in consultation with the panel. A closed hearing shall be closed to all except the panel, the parties and their counsel, the Investigating Officer, the testifying witness and the recorder of the proceedings.

    2. Recording. The hearing shall be recorded by videotape. The Investigating Officer shall ensure that the recording process maintains the confidentiality of the evidence, and that the resulting videotape 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. The party requesting such additional recording shall bear its cost; if the panel requests it, then the Investigating Officer shall bear its cost. If either party requests a transcript, that party shall bear its cost. If the panel requests a transcript, the Investigating Officer shall bear its cost.
    3. Confidentiality. In any hearing or portion of hearing that is closed, 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. At the request of either party, witnesses shall be sequestered from the hearing prior to their testimony, unless the panel, in the interests of justice, objects to such sequestration.
    5. Rights of the Parties. Subject to the Investigating Officer's power to control the hearing, described in paragraph (6) below, the clinical faculty member may be accompanied by another faculty member of his or her choice, subject to paragraph (4) above, regarding sequestration of witnesses. In addition, the parties 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 statement after the presentation of evidence;
      6. to submit a written argument at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence;
      7. to be consulted and to present oral and/or written argument for the purpose of influencing any decision made by the Investigating Officer in the exercise of the Investigating Officer's power to control the hearing.
    6. Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer shall have the power to control the hearing, in consultation with the panel, including but not limited to the power:
      1. to ask questions of any witness;
      2. to limit the presentation of evidence on grounds of irrelevancy or redundancy when necessary to avoid an excessively long hearing, but the investigating 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 and closing statements;
      4. to limit the length of any written arguments submitted;
      5. to limit the time after the conclusion of the presentation of evidence for submission of written arguments to the panel;
      6. to set the date, time, and place for conducting the hearing, including the beginning, ending, adjournments, and any reopenings, in the interest of achieving an expeditious proceeding and accommodating the convenience of the parties.
      7. to take such action as seems appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of marked documents or other confidential matters to the maximum extent possible consistent with a full opportunity of each party to present and hear relevant evidence.
    7. The Panel. The panel shall have the power to ask questions of any witness.
  6. Burdens of Proof and Standards of Judgment.
    1. Denial of Promotion or Initial Reappointment. In a challenge to the University's denial of reappointment before the clinical faculty member has received a successful three-year review or to the University's denial of promotion, the Judicial Panel shall make findings of fact and shall draw conclusions based on those findings, in accordance with the burdens of proof and standards of judgment applicable to each Ground for Challenge, as set forth below.
      1. Violation of a University Obligation.
        1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the clinical faculty member must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that, on the basis of a written promise to the clinical faculty member by departmental executive officer, collegiate dean, or other authorized administrator of the University, the clinical faculty member was justified in believing that promotion or reappointment would be granted on the basis of the clinical faculty member's acknowledged accomplishments and that the clinical faculty member relied detrimentally on the promise. In order to rely on a written promise the clinical 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 clinical 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 clinical faculty member on this ground.
        2. If the panel finds in favor of the clinical faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that the clinical faculty member be granted promotion or reappointment, as appropriate.
      2. Clearly Adequate Record of Achievement.
        1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the clinical faculty member must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the clinical faculty member's record of achievement justifies promotion or reappointment. Thus, the panel shall sustain the challenged decision unless the panel is of a firm and definite conviction based on the clinical faculty member's record that denying the clinical faculty member such 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 promotion or reappointment decision by the relevant clearly defined written standards of the clinical faculty member's department or other academic unit that were in effect at the time of the clinical faculty member's original appointment or reappointment, unless other standards by which the clinical faculty member would be judged were stated in a written communication made to the clinical faculty member by the departmental executive officer or collegiate dean at that time. If other standards were thus communicated, they shall govern the case. The panel may take into account formulations of standards adopted later only if doing so does no harm to the clinical faculty member's case. The panel may also consider comparable decisions concerning other clinical faculty members in interpreting and applying written standards. In the absence of written standards or written communication, the panel shall deem the standards to be those that prevailed in comparable decisions concerning other clinical faculty members; or, where the clinical faculty member has made a showing of particular relevance, comparable decisions concerning tenure-track faculty members may be used.
        3. The panel shall give great weight to the assessment of any person or persons knowledgeable in the faculty member's teaching area 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.
        4. In arriving at its finding on this ground, the panel shall consider the clinical faculty member's record as a whole, but no reasons other than those cited in the University's Written Statement of Reasons to the clinical faculty member shall be considered in dispute, all other matters being presumed to have been resolved conclusively in favor of the clinical faculty member.
        5. If the panel finds in favor of the clinical faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that the clinical faculty member be granted promotion or reappointment, as appropriate.
      3. Improper Reason.
        1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the clinical faculty member must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the decision to deny promotion or reappointment to the clinical faculty member was substantially affected by an improper reason as defined in paragraph (ii) below.
        2. An Improper Reason is one based in whole or in part on the clinical faculty member's race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, genetic information, status as a U.S. veteran, service in the U.S. military, sexual orientation, gender identity, associational preferences, or other characteristic that should be irrelevant to the decision, or by a reason that violates the clinical faculty member's academic freedom.
        3. If the panel finds in favor of the clinical faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that a reconsideration of the original decision to deny the clinical faculty member promotion or reappointment be undertaken, starting at the lowest level at which an evaluation or recommendation or written report could have been affected by consideration of an improper reason; that the reconsideration be based upon the clinical faculty member's record as updated to the time of the reconsideration; and that an extension of the clinical faculty member's probationary appointment be granted as appropriate to make such reconsideration possible.
      4. Improper Procedure.
        1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the clinical faculty member initially must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that in the actions leading to the decision by the University (to deny promotion or reappointment to the clinical faculty member), there occurred a failure to engage in reasonable faculty consultation or a significant violation of an established University procedure. The panel must find in favor of a clinical faculty member who meets this initial burden, unless the University shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the failure to engage in reasonable faculty consultation or the significant procedural violation could not have affected the decision.
        2. If the panel finds in favor of the clinical faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that a reconsideration of the original decision to deny the clinical faculty member promotion or reappointment 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; that the reconsideration be based upon the clinical faculty member's record as updated to the time of the reconsideration; and that an extension of the clinical faculty member's probationary appointment be granted as appropriate to make possible such reconsideration.
      5. Unfair Impediment.
        1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the clinical faculty member must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an unfair impediment, for which the University or one of its officers was responsible, substantially affected the clinical faculty member's failure to meet established standards.
        2. If the panel finds in favor of the clinical faculty member on this ground, it shall recommend that a new consideration whether to grant the clinical faculty member promotion or reappointment be undertaken, starting at the beginning of the evaluation process on the basis of the record then achieved by the clinical faculty member; and that an extension of the clinical faculty member's probationary appointment be granted as appropriate to remove the effect of the impediment.
    2. Termination or Denial of Subsequent Reappointment. In a challenge to the University's termination of a clinical faculty member during the term of appointment, or to the University's denial of reappointment after the clinical faculty member has received at least one successful three-year review, the Judicial Panel shall make findings of fact and shall draw conclusions based on those findings, in accordance with the burdens of proof and standards of judgment applicable to each Ground for Challenge, as set forth below.
      1. Lack of Justification.
        1. In order to gain a favorable recommendation from the panel on this ground, the University must show, by the preponderance of the evidence, that its termination of or decision not to reappoint the clinical faculty member was for the clinical faculty member's failure to meet applicable written standards of competence and performance; or that the decision not to reappoint was for changed economic circumstances or program needs such that the position itself is terminated, and that appropriate notice was given to the clinical faculty member.
        2. If the panel finds in favor of the clinical faculty member on this ground in the case of termination, it shall recommend that the clinical faculty member be reinstated under the prior appointment. If the panel finds in favor of the clinical faculty member on this ground in the case of denial of reappointment, it shall recommend that the clinical faculty member be reappointed for a term no less than three years. The panel, in its discretion, may recommend reappointment for a longer term, and the panel also may recommend other actions, except for the paying of fees of counsel, that it judges to be required by the equities of the case.
  7. Report of the Panel.
    1. The panel shall make its recommendations in a written report which shall be prepared and sent to the Presiding Officer as soon as possible after the conclusion of the investigation and hearing. If the panel has found in favor of the clinical faculty member, it may make, in addition to its major recommendation concerning the clinical faculty member's termination, promotion or reappointment, recommendations for other actions, except for the paying of counsel fees, that it judges to be required by the equities of the case.
    2. The report shall contain findings of fact and conclusions drawn from those findings as well as the panel's recommendation, if any. The report shall include findings of fact and conclusions drawn from those findings that resolve each and every ground raised by the clinical faculty member, even if the conclusion reached on one ground is sufficient to support the Panel's recommendation. The report shall specifically include the following:
      1. an express statement of each ground raised by the clinical faculty member, including the identity and definition of each ground specified in III-29.9a(2) and (3);
      2. an express statement of the burden of proof governing each ground raised by the clinical faculty member as specified in III-29.9f;
      3. an opinion explaining the reasons for the panel's conclusions and recommendations, if any, based on the findings of fact and the burden of proof and standard of judgment applicable to each ground raised by the clinical 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 to any such assessment by the panel.
    3. The report shall be written in a manner that satisfies the requirement of protecting confidentiality to the maximum extent possible as provided in III-29.4j and III-29.9d(5). In preparing its report, the panel in its discretion may seek the assistance of the Investigating Officer.
    4. If the panel has not found in favor of the clinical faculty member on any ground, the Presiding Officer shall send copies of the report only to the clinical faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Academic Officer, the University Representative, and the Investigating Officer. The case will then be closed, subject only to a decision by the Board of Regents to grant the clinical faculty member further review.
    5. If the panel has found in favor of the clinical faculty member on any ground, the Presiding Officer shall send copies of the report to the persons named in paragraph (4) above, and also shall send a copy of the report to the President.
  8. The President's Decision. If the panel has found in favor of the clinical faculty member on any ground, the President of the University shall decide whether or not the University will accept the recommendations of the panel. The President may seek advice of counsel concerning the decision, but the Office of General Counsel shall not provide that advice if it had previously advised the University Representative concerning the matter.
    1. Basis for President's Decision. The President's decision shall be based on all documents, testimony, and other matters presented to the panel. The President shall not hold a hearing, but may meet with the panel. Furthermore, either party may submit a brief to the President within ten business days of receiving notice that the Presiding Officer has transmitted the panel's report to the President. In making the decision, the President shall give great weight to the findings and recommendations of the panel. Like the panel, the President shall be bound by the burdens of proof and standards of judgment stated in paragraph f above. It shall not be considered an acceptance by the President of the panel's recommendations for the President to order a reconsideration of the original decision to deny the clinical faculty member promotion or reappointment as the case may be unless the panel has specifically recommended that action.
    2. President Accepts All Recommendations in Favor of Clinical Faculty Member. If the President accepts all of the panel's findings and recommendations in favor of the clinical faculty member, the President shall direct that the panel's recommendations be implemented. The President shall so inform the Presiding Officer in writing, and shall send a copy thereof to the panel members. The Presiding Officer shall send copies of the President's final decision to the clinical faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Academic Officer, the University Representative, each of the members of the panel, and the Investigating Officer. The case will then be closed.
    3. President Does Not Accept the Panel's Recommendation. 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 and shall send a copy thereof to the faculty member, the University Representative, the Presiding Officer and the Investigating Officer. Within five days of receiving the President's decision, either party may submit a brief to the Investigating Officer for the panel's consideration. The Investigating 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 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 Investigating Officer. The panel shall respond within ten business days of the date on which the panel's chair receives the President's letter or the parties' briefs, whichever is later. Within five days of receiving the panel's report, either party may submit a brief to the President, with copies to the opposing party, the Presiding Officer and the Investigating 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 Clinical Faculty Member. If, after panel reconsideration, the President decides against the clinical faculty member on all grounds, 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 clinical faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Academic Officer, the University Representative, each of the members of the panel, and the Investigating Officer. The case will then be closed, subject only to a decision by the Board of Regents to grant the clinical faculty member a request for review.
      2. After Panel Reconsideration, President Accepts At Least One, But Not All, Recommendations in Favor of Clinical Faculty Member. If, after panel reconsideration, the President accepts at least one, but not all, of the panel's recommendations in favor of the clinical faculty member, the President shall direct that those recommendations that the President accepts be implemented. The President shall inform the panel members in writing 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 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 clinical faculty member, the departmental executive officer, the collegiate dean, the Academic Officer, the University Representative, and the Investigating Officer. The case will then be closed, subject only to a decision by the Board of Regents to grant the clinical faculty member a request for review with regard to those recommendations not accepted by the President.