Charges must be filed within seven years of the date on which the event in question occurred. If the date of limitation is in question, the Faculty Senate President, the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee, and the Chief Research Officer and Senior Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies (Chief Research Officer) shall determine whether the given event occurred within the specified time limit.
 
 

The Faculty Senate President and the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee should accept the accusation only after they are satisfied that its substance complies with this Policy's definition of "misconduct." At this time, and at their discretion, they may consult with the Chief Research Officer relative to the alleged research ethics violation.
 
 

A meeting should be scheduled to occur within 20 calendar days following acceptance of the accusation for the accused to appear before the President of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee for the purpose of hearing the charge(s) and being told who authored the charges. The accused will be asked to plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" to each charge. If the accused pleads "Guilty" the President of the Faculty Senate will report the facts to the Chief Research Officer, who will, within 90 calendar days, prepare a report for the Provost.
 
 

If the accused pleads "Not Guilty, " or if the accused refuses to respond, an inquiry, the first step of the review process, should result. The Chief Research Officer should be notified of the inquiry. In the inquiry state, factual information is gathered and expeditiously reviewed to determine if an investigation of the charge is warranted. An inquiry is not a formal hearing; it is designed to separate allegations deserving of further investigation from frivolous, unjustified or clearly a mistaken allegation.
 
 

The Chief Research Officer will inform the accuser of the disposition at the conclusion of the Investigation stage. During the initial meeting with the accused for the purpose of presenting charges, only the Faculty Senate President, the chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee, and the accused with his/her lawyer, if desired, may be present. During hearings by the Committee of Inquiry or the Committee of Investigation, only duly appointed members of the given committee and the committee's invited witnesses with his/her lawyer, if desired, may be present.
 
 

For any specific allegation or set of allegations, the Committee of Inquiry will determine if an investigation is warranted. The Committee of Inquiry will submit a written report to the Chief Research Officer and the Faculty Senate President within 30 calendar days of the formation of the Committee of Inquiry.
 
 

The Committee of Investigation, meeting in closed sessions, will review all materials, question relevant parties, and allow for all parties to present their views separately (without the presence of the other parties) to the Committee.
 
 

The Committee of Investigation will prepare within 90 calendar days, a report indicating whether ethics violations have occurred; the report may include estimation of one or more of the following:

The report will be submitted to the Chief Research Officer and the Faculty Senate President, who will forward the report to the Provost.

If disciplinary action taken against a faculty member constitutes a grievable action under either Faculty Grievance Procedure I or Faculty Grievance Procedure II, the Faculty member may file a grievance in accordance with the appropriate procedure. Disciplinary action against other individuals associated with the University are subject to applicable grievance procedures.
 
 

Assure the respondent a fair hearing and access to reports.
 
 

Minimize the number of individuals involved in the inquiry and investigation phases.
 
 

Individuals chosen to assist in the inquiry process should have no real or apparent conflicts of interest bearing on the case in question. They should be unbiased, and have appropriate background for judging the issues being raised.
 
 

Consultation of university legal counsel is probably necessary.
 
 

Appropriate funding agencies should be fully informed in writing at both the outset and conclusion of an investigation.
 
 

All detailed documentation of the Committees of Inquiry and Investigation shall be maintained by the Office of the Chief Research Officer for at least three (3) years and must, upon request, be provided to authorized personnel.
 
 

Appropriate interim administrative actions will be taken by the Chief Research Office at the outset of the inquiry stage to protect supporting funds and to ensure that the purposes of the project are being met.

* The definition includes malicious and public (suggesting that neither maliciousness nor publicness, alone, is sufficient) misuse of the research ethics policy itself (reference section II.E).

* Exploitation of others includes misuse of colleagues, such as intentional and malicious failure to credit the work of another, deliberately misleading other individuals to obtain research goals, etc. It does not include benign activity that seems to, or may actually, exploit.

* This policy should not be construed to include any activity that is benign in intent (not malicious, deliberately misleading, etc.).
 
 

II. E. It is the responsibility of University faculty to protect its research integrity by condemning unethical research activity, by investigating credible charges of unethical research brought against the faculty's peers, by taking steps to restore the reputations of peers that are charged unjustly or in error, by assessing the damage done by an unethical peer if appropriate (see section III.C), and by seeking sanction through University administrative authorities against those who violate ethical research practices. Appropriate administrative personnel alone have the authority to deprive one of property or liberty interests (within legal constraints). Consequently we feel that the assessment and pursuit of sanctions against an individual should not be a matter addressed by this Policy.
 
 

Because the Chief Research Officer has an overall view of University policy and activities that may be valuable at this stage of the process, the President of the Faculty Senate and the Chair of the Faculty Senate Research Committee, at their discretion, may consult with the Chief Research Officer prior to rendering a decision about whether the charges should go forward under this Policy.

It is in the interest of the accused and the University to provide an opportunity to the accused to abbreviate the procedures outlined in this Policy. Specifically, the accused need not be subjected to the trauma of a peer investigation if indeed he or she would prefer to admit guilt and be subjected to appropriate administrative sanction.
 
 

III. B. A Committee of Inquiry is responsible for determining whether the facts in the case are contentious (sufficient uncertainty exists to prevent a determination of innocence without extensive investigation), or that there is a probability that the position of the accused is or is not credible.

A driving concern of the Committee of Inquiry is the protection of all involved, and particularly that of the accused. Toward this end, a Committee of Inquiry should balance the need for information upon which to make a decision against the need for confidentiality. The merit of charges cannot always be made on the strength of charges alone, thus, to adequately protect the accused against a potentially damaging investigation, the Committee may need to expand its inquiry beyond the charges and accompanying documentation. At the same time, it must be realized that the likelihood of trauma and damage to reputation increases as the scope of an inquiry grows. The pertinent question is, how far should a Committee of Inquiry go to protect an unjustly charged individual against a more extensive investigation given the need to limit the scope of knowledge about the charges? The answer is that the Committee of Inquiry should limit its efforts to the minimum needed to establish that the facts in the case are contentious, or that there is a probability that the accused's position is or is not credible. Certainly the accused should have the opportunity to respond to the charges before the Committee of Inquiry. The Committee of Inquiry may need to seek clarification from the accuser, and may even need to resolve doubts by seeking evidence from another source. At all times, however, the Committee of Inquiry should seek to confine the extent of knowledge about the charges leveled, and consequently should cease its Inquiry as soon as it can conclude that the charges may or may not be grounded (not that the charges are or are not true). Strategies may include strictly limiting the number of individuals approached about the matter, limiting witnesses to individuals who have prior knowledge of the charges, or soliciting documentation from involved parties. In addition to determining probability of ethics violation, the Committee of Inquiry should clarify the charges brought against the accused. This involves throwing out charges that are frivolous or ungrounded, and identifying those charges that may be grounded. A subsequent Committee of Investigation, because its investigation is more thorough, needn’t, of necessity, be bound to the scope defined by the Committee of Inquiry, but should give credence to its recommendations.

III. C. The Committee of Investigation is responsible for determining whether an ethics violation has occurred relative to the situation addressed by the charges. Such violation need not be limited to the specific charges, but should be related to the incidents addressed by those charges. The person who brings charges may be aware of only some of the ethical violations associated with a given incident, thus an investigation needs the freedom to note problems relative to that incident which it may uncover during the course of investigating the charges.

The Committee of Investigation, like its predecessor, is concerned with protecting the integrity of the parties involved. Consequently, it too should balance the need for information upon which to make a decision against the need for confidentiality. In this case, however, the balance should favor the gathering of information. It is more important that this Committee be correct in its decision than it is to limit the scope of knowledge about the investigation. The Committee should, of course, cease operation when it has enough information to make a just decision, but should not jeopardize justice in the name of confidentiality.