Ohio Administrative Code
Title 3349 - Northeast Ohio Medical University
Chapter 3349-3 - Faculty Rules
Section 3349-3-77 - Appendix D - university procedures for sanctions of faculty including censure and dismissal for just cause
Universal Citation: OH Admin Code 3349-3-77
Current through all regulations passed and filed through September 16, 2024
(A) Purpose
(1)
To provide for
the enforcement of laws and regulations applicable to faculty in their
education, research and services roles; the university faculty bylaws and rules
governing the conduct of faculty.
(2)
To provide for
appropriate due process protections
(B) Scope
(1)
The procedures of
this rule do not apply to faculty non-reappointment or nonrenewal of a faculty
contract.
(2)
The waiver of any hearing or appeal rights by the
accused or the resignation of the accused will not preclude the university from
following any of the procedures outlined herein.
(3)
This rule applies
to faculty only in their capacity as faculty members in the fulfillment of
their education, research and service responsibilities to the college and/or
university. This rule does not apply to academic administrators in their
capacity as academic administrators, even if they hold a faculty
appointment.
(4)
The university does not condone bullying, intimidation,
harassment or unlawful discrimination. Allegations of such misconduct will be
handled in accordance with university policies on bullying, harassment, or
unlawful discrimination even if such misconduct was allegedly committed by a
faculty member in his/ her role as a faculty member.
(C) Definitions
Words have their ordinary and widely accepted meaning unless the word or phrase has been assigned a specific meaning within their university faculty bylaws.
(1)
Accused. Refers
to the faculty member against whom allegations of conduct constituting just
cause have been made.
(2)
Censure. Official and public reprimand.
(3)
Charge(s). A
formal, written statement of the complaint(s) or allegations against a faculty
member.
(4)
Dismissal. An involuntary permanent severance of
employment, enrollment or volunteer status.
(5)
File. Official
file for the faculty member.
(6)
Funding agency.
Any source which provides funds for the conduct of professional
research.
(7)
Hearing. An official meeting at which witnesses are
heard and evidence is presented.
(8)
Inquiry
procedures. Procedures used to determine whether there is probable cause that
misconduct has occurred.
(9)
Investigatory procedures. Procedures employed to
conduct a thorough evaluation of relevant evidence.
(10)
Just cause.
Includes, but is not limited to:
(a)
Professional incopetence;
(b)
Conduct not in
accordance with the ethical standards of a faculty member of the university or
the profession as defined in the university faculty code of
conduct;
(c)
Neglect of duty;
(d)
Dishonesty in
administration, teaching or in the conduct of research or breach of
professional ethics;
(e)
Conduct which significantly impairs the faculty
member's ability, or that of others, to carry out their responsibilities to the
university;
(f)
Violation of the policies of the university and
university faculty bylaws; or
(g)
Conviction of a
felony;
(11)
Malfeasance. The doing of an act which a person ought
not do at all.
(12)
Misfeasance. The improper doing of an act which a
person might lawfully do.
(13)
Nonfeasance. The
omission of an act which a person ought to do.
(14)
Preponderance of
the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence, superior evidentiary weight,
though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is
still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue
rather than the other.
(15)
Probation. A defined period of time during which a
faculty member must meet a set of goals and expectations or face
termination.
(16)
Reprimand. Formal written disciplinary documentation by
an administrative superior not requiring a hearing or other due process
protections. A reprimand constitutes a final, non-appealable resolution of a
given charge.
(17)
Sanction. A penalty imposed. All sanctions will be
noted in the faculty member's file. The available sanctions include, but are
not limited to:
(a)
Reprimand;
(b)
Removal from a
particular project;
(c)
special monitoring of future work;
(d)
Censure
(e)
Suspension
(f)
Salary
reduction;
(g)
Probation; or
(h)
Termination of
appointment and/or employment.
(18)
Scientific
misconduct, misconduct in ccience. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or
other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted
within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting
research. It does not include honest errors or honest differences of
interpretations or judgments of data ( 42 CFR 50.102). This definition also
includes "research misconduct" that is defined as fabrication, falsification,
or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by national science
foundation (NSF), reviewing, research proposals submitted to NSF, or in
reporting research results funded by NSF (45 CFR
689.1).
(19)
Suspension. An
immediate, interim action employed by the dean of the college or the provost of
the university pending a full investigation and disposition of charges brought
against a faculty member. The suspension may result in the faculty member being
relieved from some or all of his/her duties. Suspension may be automatic or
discretionary.
(D) General considerations
(1)
Public
statements
Public statements on behalf of the university may be made only under the authority of the president.
(2)
Confidentiality
The university will conduct all inquiries into charges of misconduct discreetly. This information will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. All committee meetings and hearings will be closed.
(3)
Protection for
wistleblowers
The university will, to the maximum extent permitted by law, protect the privacy of and will not take any adverse action against an individual who, in good faith, makes allegations of misconduct. The university will not tolerate any retaliation by the accused.
(4)
Conflicts of interest
The university shall take precautions against real or apparent conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in any investigation or inquiry proceeding. Any person having a conflict of interest must disclose the conflict to the individual responsible for that phase of the proceedings. Objections by the accused to the appointment of a specific inquiry committee or review committee members will be honored if the university concludes that the committee or its member(s) cannot be fair and impartial.
(5)
Duty to cooperate
All university employees are required to cooperate in good faith with investigations of possible misconduct.
(6)
General counsel
The university's general counsel will assist during all proceedings (including hearings) by securing, reviewing and maintaining the integrity of evidence, necessary relevant records and materials; and providing consultation to all committees as needed. All final reports will be maintained by the general counsel in a secure manner for at least five years after the termination of the proceedings.
(E) Informal procedures for non-scientific misconduct
(1)
If an allegation
of conduct constituting just cause that does not involve scientific misconduct
has been made against a faculty member, the faculty member's department chair
or his or her designee shall investigate the matter within thirty calendar days
of the report. The department chair or designee will document the allegation
and the results of the investigation.
(2)
At the conclusion
of his/her investigation, the department chair shall provide the faculty member
with a written report outlining the allegation and the results of the
investigation. The faculty member may submit a written response to the
allegation and the results of the investigation to the department chair no
later than ten business days from the date the faculty member receives a copy
of the written report.
(3)
Upon receipt of the faculty member's written response
or upon expiration of the time period for a faculty member to submit a written
response, the department chair will confer with the dean or the dean's designee
of the respective college to review the allegation, investigation findings and
faculty member's response, if applicable, to determine if any further
investigation or action is required.
(4)
If appropriate
and after consultation with the dean or the dean's designee, the department
chair may issue a reprimand to the faculty member. A reprimand may properly be
issued if the violation is relatively minor and correctable and if the
violation does not pose a threat to public well-being or the university
resources. A reprimand will constitute a final, non-appealable resolution of
the matter.
(5)
If the dean determines that a sanction beyond a
reprimand should be considered, an inquiry committee will be convened to
undertake a formal investigation and hearing as outlined in paragraph (F) of
this rule.
(6)
If the faculty member charged with misconduct is a
department chair or in the decanal line, the dean or the dean's designee will
conduct the investigation and make a determination if further action as set
forth herein is required.
(F) Formal proceedings
(1)
Preliminary inquiry for allegations of scientific
misconduct
(a)
Allegation(s) of scientific misconduct must be submitted in
writing to the dean as soon as possible. Upon such notification, the dean shall
provide written notice to the provost of the university and the accused of the
charges and a summary of the supporting evidence or investigative reports, if
any, no later than five business days after the dean's receipt of the
allegation(s).
(b)
No later than five business days from the date the
provost receives the written allegation, he/she shall appoint a three-person
inquiry committee from within the university to advise the dean. The inquiry
committee will consist of associate professors and professors from outside the
department of the accused. committee members cannot be co-investigators of the
accused.
(c)
The inquiry committee may consult experts without
revealing the name of the accused.
(d)
The inquiry
committee shall complete the preliminary inquiry, including preparation of a
written report, no later than thirty calendar days from the date of the inquiry
committee appointment. The report shall summarize what evidence was reviewed,
relevant interviews and include the conclusions and recommendations of the
inquiry committee.
(e)
The accused shall be given a copy of the report and may
submit a written response to the report within five calendar days of receipt of
the report.
(f)
If the preliminary inquiry cannot be completed within
thirty calendar days from the date of appointment, the record shall include
documentation of the reasons for delay and indicate when the inquiry will be
completed. However, the preliminary inquiry must be concluded within forty-five
calendar days.
(g)
The inquiry committee will make a finding on each
charge and will document the reasons for that finding. The committee may
recommend in writing to the dean that:
(i)
No further
proceedings are necessary; or
(ii)
Phase II formal
proceedings should be initated.
(h)
The inquiry
committee report, signed by the inquiry committee members, will be submitted to
the dean, who will review it with the provost.
(i)
The dean will
provide written notice to the accused of the outcome of the inquiry and will
consider the matter closed or request that the provost convene a review
committee within thirty calendar days of the completion of the
inquiry.
(j)
If the inquiry committee discovers any reason, as
outlined in paragraph (B)(7) of this rule, which indicates that the office of
research integrity (ORI), national science foundation (NSF), or other
appropriate funding agency should be notified, the committee chair must
immediately notify the provost and the dean.
(2)
Notification of
funding agencies
The provost, or designee, will notify the ORI, NSF or other appropriate funding agency if, at any stage of the inquiry or investigation, it becomes apparent that any of the following conditions exist:
(a)
There is an immediate health hazard
involved;
(b)
There is an immediate need to protect federal funds or
equipment;
(c)
There is an immediate need to protect the interests of
the person(s) making the allegations or of the indivicual(s) who is the subject
of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if
any;
(d)
It is probable that the alleged incident will be
reported publicly;
(e)
There is reasonable suspicion of possible criminal
violation; if criminal activity is suspected, the university must inform the
funding agency within twenty-four hours of obtaining that information;
or
(f)
Disclosure of facts that may affect current or
potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that may
compromise the funding agency's ability to ensure appropriate use of federal
funds and otherwise protect public interest.
(3)
Notification of
investigation
If a review committee is convened to consider allegations of scientific misconduct, the provost or his/her designee will notify the appropriate funding agency, in writing of the investigation on or before the date formal proceedings begin. Such notification shall include the name of the person(s) accused, the general nature of the allegations, and the application or grant number(s) involved.
(G) Formal proceedings - review committee
(1)
Notification of charges
(a)
Within five
business days of the decision to convene a review committee, the dean will
notify the individual(s) involved, in writing, of the:
(i)
Charge(s);
(ii)
Names of the
review committee members;
(iii)
Right to a
hearing and the date, time and place of said hearing; and
(iv)
Right to attend
the hearing; to call witnesses; and to have an individual present designated as
counsel who may advise the accused but not address the committee. The accused
is responsible for his/her own legal expenses.
(b)
Notification will
be personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
(c)
Failure of the accused to attend or participate
constitutes a waiver of the right to do so and will not delay or impede the
process as outlined herein.
(d)
The dean may
suspend the accused from some or all of his/her duties for the duration of the
review. Suspension during this period will be with full pay and benefits unless
the law forbids.
(2)
The review
committee
(a)
The provost shall appoint an ad hoc review committee
consisting of three members from the ranks of associate professor and full
professor. The faculty on the review committee may be drawn from any college of
the university.
(b)
The committee shall elect its own
chair.
(3)
Duties of the review committee
(a)
The review
committee shall conduct an investigation, which shall include examination of
documentation it deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities, in whatever
format, including, but not limited to: relevant research data and proposals,
publications, correspondence, memoranda, records of telephone calls, research
notebooks and the inquiry committee's report.
(b)
The review
committee will provide a receipt acknowledging possession of the materials to
the inquiry committee. When requested by the accused, photocopies of written
materials taken shall be provided to the accused. Other evidence will be made
available for review under controlled conditions.
(c)
The review
committee may request supplemental written material and seek the advice of
content expert consultants.
(d)
The committee
must carry its investigation through to completion and pursue diligently all
significant issues. (In cases of scientific misconduct, if for any reason the
investigation is terminated prior to its completion, the funding agency must be
notified.)
(4)
Hearing procedures
(a)
The review
committee shall conduct hearing(s) that are closed to the public at which the
review committee chair shall:
(i)
Call witnesses who will present any relevant
information and evidence (prior to the hearing, the accused will be provided
with a list of known witnesses);
(ii)
Allow the
Accused to present any relevant information and evidence including necessary
witnesses and physical evidence, and cross-examine witnesses;
(iii)
Allow for the
committee members to question the accused, witnesses and review evidence
presented; and
(iv)
Cause a verbatim transcript to be kept.
(b)
The
accused may have counsel present to advise his or her client at a hearing, but
counsel may not participate in the presentation or questioning of
witnesses.
(c)
The dean has the right to attend the hearing but not
the committee deliberations.
(d)
The verbatim
transcript of the hearing will be available for review by the committee and the
accused. A copy will be made available to the accused upon
request.
(5)
Deliberations by the review committee
(a)
The review
committee shall meet in executive session to consider all relevant information
obtained during the investigation as outlined in paragraph (G)(8) of this rule
including evidence obtained at the hearing, if one was held, and any written
response to the charge(s) by the accused. The review committee may invite
content experts, scientific consultants, general counsel, and appropriate
support staff to attend the deliberations as necessary.
(b)
Each of the
charges will be considered separately. One of two findings is possible:
(i)
The evidence does
not support the allegations(s); or
(ii)
The evidence
does support the allegations(s).
(c)
The standard of
proof on each of the charges will be the preponderance of evidence standard.
The review committee will attempt to reach a consensus on each of the charges,
and where consensus is not achieved, the decision will be made by majority
vote, and an anonymous record of the vote will be kept.
(d)
The review
committee must maintain documentation to substantiate its
findings.
(e)
The review committee shall take no more than ninety
calendar days from the date of appointment to complete the investigation,
conduct the hearing, prepare a report of its findings, and report its findings
and any recommendations to the provost and the dean. All review committee
members shall sign the report.
(f)
Within five
business days, the dean or designee shall consider the review committee's
report and determine what sanction, if any, is appropriate.
(g)
The provost and
the accused will receive a copy of the dean's decision.
(h)
The decision of
the dean is final unless appealed as outlined herein.
(6)
Extensions and progress reports
If the provost determines at the end of the ninety calendar days that the review committee cannot complete its work to allow a decision within a one hundred twenty calendar day period:
(a)
The provost must
submit to the funding agency a written request for an extension and an
explanation for the delay that includes an interim report on the progress to
date and an estimate of the date of completion.
(b)
If the extension
is granted, the provost must file periodic progress reports as requested by the
funding agency.
(7)
Final
report
The final report by the provost to the funding agency, due within one hundred twenty calendar days from the day the investigation begins, must describe:
(a)
The policies and
procedures under which the investigation was conducted;
(b)
How and from whom
information was obtained relevent to the investigation; and
(c)
A description of
any sanctions applied by the university.
(8)
Appeal procedure
for scientific misconduct
(a)
If a sanction other than a reprimand is applied, a
faculty member may appeal the decision(s) in writing to the provost within ten
business days of receipt of the report from the dean.
(b)
In case of an
appeal, the provost may appoint a committee to assist him/her in considering
the appeal.
(c)
The provost shall within thirty calendar days:
(i)
Consider all
relevant reports;
(ii)
Sustain, overturn or modify the decision of the dean
and so notify the accused and the dean; and
(iii)
File the final
report with the funding agency if appropriate.
(d)
The decision of
the provost is final.
(H) Suspension of faculty
(1)
Automatic suspension
A faculty member will be automatically suspended by the dean if the:
(a)
Faculty member's
narcotics license has been revoked for inappropriate use;
(b)
Faculty member is
convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony; or
(c)
Faculty member's
license to practice has been permanently revoked.
(2)
Discretionary
suspension
A faculty member may be suspended by the dean if the:
(a)
Faculty member's license to practice is suspended,
revoked, limited, or if the faculty member is placed on probation by the state
licensing board;
(b)
Faculty member's hospital privileges, if applicable, to
practice have been suspended, revoked, or he/she is placed on Probation, with
the exception of medical records deficiencies; or
(c)
Faculty member
has been accused of conduct that, if true, would constitute grounds for the
suspension, revocation or limitation of the faculty member's license to
practice and if in the dean's judgment, there appears to be sufficient grounds
to support such an accusation.
(3)
Suspensions
lasting over a year
If the suspension of a nontenure-track faculty member exceeds a year in length, the faculty member's appointment will be withdrawn.
Disclaimer: These regulations may not be the most recent version. Ohio may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
