From: Craig Thulin Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 4:39 PM To: Karen Clemes Cc: Anne Arendt Pauli Alin Scott Abbott Craig Thulin Alan Clarke Kathren Brown Subject: Re: Help understanding process for disciplinary situations Folks, I believe that we can all agree that Policy 648 is in need of change, including clarifications that would possibly have avoided the present state of concern about the particular case in question right now. That need for change is being addressed, but will unfortunately not be of much assistance at the present. Craig On Apr 12, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Karen Clemes wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your email and the opportunity to provide my thoughts. While i cannot discuss individual cases with you, i am happy to provide my take on UVU policy and process. I?d also be happy to meet with you to provide additional information on this policy, if that would be helpful. I am not writing this email to provide you with legal counsel or details on any particular case. Nor does my summary supersede UVU and USHE policy or applicable law, which govern faculty disciplinary processes. My intent is to give you my quick summary with the hope of answering your questions. With the exception of Policy 162 (sexual misconduct) and 165 (discrimination and harassment} cases, which have their own discipline and appeal/review processes, faculty discipline is governed by UVU Policy 648, which is open at this time. Here is the current policy: The plan is to divide 648 into two or more separate policies, with faculty misconduct/discipline having in its own stand-alone policy (while the other issues in the current 648 such as reductions in the event of financial exigency? will be handled in a separate policy or policies). A committee of mainly faculty has revised the portion of 648 that will become the faculty misconduct/discipline policy. After editing by Kat/Pila r, Policy 648 is now in my office for legal review, to ensure we are complying with applicable USHE policy and law. i mention that because there will be lots of opportunity to discuss the policy when it comes to Faculty Senate next fall, when your more specific comments and concerns will be most welcome. in any event, we are operating under the current Policy 648. When an alleged concern/complaint arises about faculty performance or misconduct, the next step would be to review that concern and, if the allegations involve alleged policy violations that cannot be addressed informally, investigate the allegations with the goal of determining whether policies have been violated. The concerns/complaints can come from a variety of sources, including EthicsPoint or written or verbal complaints to the chair, dean, Academic Affairs, etc. If the decision is made by?the dean/Academic Affairs, with counsel from my of?ce, to conduct an investigation, then the parties involved will have an opportunity to respond, including meeting with the investigator(s). At the end of the investigation, the relevant decision maker reviews the investigation results and makes a decision on next steps, including potential discipline if the allegations are substantiated. Per Policy 648 Sections 4.7.1 in all cases where formal discipline is recommended, the faculty member has the protection of the policy provisions listed, such as written notice, a statement of facts, proposed action, a statement of rights, and a schedule for hearing. This is a written letter that is provided to the faculty member. ?Note that one disciplinary option that is listed under Section 4.7.1 is- ?suspension,? meaning suspension without pay as a potential disciplinary measure. Section 4.7.7 then sets forth the appeals procedure, which provides that an appeal may be ta ken to the President, etc. While 1 will not comment on specific cases, 1 can state that, in all formal disciplinary cases of full?time faculty for conduct outside of Policies 162/165 that have occurred since I came to UVU 4 years ago, we have always used this 4.7.1+ procedure when formal discipline has been recommended, which is critical to protecting the due process rights of the faculty covered under this policy. As far as I am aware, this was also the process that was used before my arrival, though i have not been involved in those cases, so i cannot speak to them specifically. I can also state that, in the last 4 years, we have had very fewdisciplinary notices issued to faculty under Policy 648. in most cases when an investigation or disciplinary notice is pending, the faculty member remains in their role, performing theirjob duties. In some cases, an interim measure is needed while the investigation and/or disciplinary process is pending to protect the public harm of UVU and its employees and students. in the last subsection of Section 4.7, Policy 648 provides a procedure for addressing instances when a (paid) ?suspension pending action? an involuntary paid administrative leave) is needed as in interim measure to protect the public harm. Here it is: 4. 7.8 Suspension pending action. In the event that a faculty member is charged with a serious a?ense affecting the public interest, the President may suspend the faculty member from profession al duties upon written notification to the faculty member and the University Board of Trustees. This suspension may remain in effect until such time as the faculty member has resigned, been acquitted, or been dismissed. While i understand that the term ?suspension? in 4.7.8 may be confusing, this is not the disciplinary ?suspension? without paycontemplated in the separate 4.7.1. Suspensions pending action do not require the elements listed in Section 4.7.1, the section that lists the due process requirements when disciplinary notice is being issued. When a suspension pending action is provided, this is not a disciplinary notice, but instead an interim measure that places the faculty member on a paid leave while the investigation and/or disciplinary action is pending. Perhaps the term ?suspension? in Section 4.7.8 needs to be revisited to state ?paid administrative leave? or ?paid administrative suspension? as part of the Policy 648 review, but it is the current UVU policy and term. In the evenfewer UVU cases where a paid ?suspension pending action? interim measure has been imposed, there has first been an analysis and conclusion by several decision makers, with my of?ce providing legal counsel, that the allegations are serious and that there is a risk to public harm. This interim measure that administration must be able to use when needed. If we had to go through a 45+?day hearing process to impose such interim measures, we would risk significant harm occurring in the interim to students, employees, or other community members. As mentioned above, if a faculty member who has been placed on a paid ?suspension pending? an investigation were to receive a disciplinary notice after the investigation is concluded, the steps in Section 4.7.1 would then be followed. Also, during an investigation, we strive to follow established principles of neutrality, thoroughness, and due process, including using/engaging neutral investigatorls) and meetings by the investigator(s) with parties where they have multiple opportunities to respond, present evidence, and request that the investigator(s) interview witnesses, along with interviews of material witnesses and review of material evidence. These interview meetings are confidential to protect the privacy of- the parties and the integrity of the process, and to reduce the potential for retaliation against parties and witnesses. For these same reasons, no member of administration will discuss pending case particulars. I hope this has addressed some of your questions about Policy 648. Best regards, Karen Karen NI. Clemes General Counsel Utah Valley University Office of General Counsel - Suite 815213. 803 West University Parkway MS 3&8 Gram, 84658 i 801.863.88g8 kciemesquaedu This is an email from Utah Vaiiey University 5 Ojjice of Genera! Coansei. This emaii and any attachments may contain information that is con?dentiai and/or protected by the attorney-ciient privilege and attorney work product doctrine This emaii is not intended for receipt by any an authorized persons. inadvertent disciosure of the contents of this email or its attachments to unintended recipients does not constitute a waiver of attorney-client priviiege or attorney work product protections. if you have received this email in error, please immediately noti?r me and destroy this email, any attachments, and oil copies, either electronic or printed. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents or information received in error is strictly prohibited. Thank you. From: Anne Arendt Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 12:05 PM To: Karen Clemes Cc: Pauli Alin Pauli. Alinqua edo>; Kathren Brown KBrown@uvo. eds?; Scott Abbott Craig Thulin Alan Clarke Anne Arendt Subj'ect: Help understanding process for disciplinary situations Karen, have some confusion on the disciplinary process here at UVU. Below is the way i see it (relating directly to policy 648). Of perhaps the greatest confusion is when an in-the?disciplinary-process? somewhere faculty can a) request a meeting with the president or others and b) when that faculty can have a person with them in any or all meetings. i figured it would be easiest to go straight to you. I am CCing a few others who I believe also would like to hear the response. If my request is too broad to be answered, then perhaps focus specifically on the process in which a faculty is suspended. Kat and Craig, hope it is all right that I went straight to Karen, but in this case I think her input will jump us much farther in the conversations to be had. Karen, my hope is an understanding by us of the process in place now will help us better give more well informed thoughts.