• Home
  • Policy Library
  • Browse for Policy:
  • University Senate Rules and Regulations

University Senate Rules and Regulations (USRR)

Policy
Purpose: 

To articulate University Senate Rules and Regulations

Applies to: 

Faculty, Staff and Students

Campus: 
Lawrence
Contents: 
  1. Academic Schedules
    1. University Calendar
    2. Class Schedule
    3. Final Examination Schedules
    4. Examinations, Quizzes and Tests Other Than Final Examinations
    5. Required Textbooks and Supplies
  2. Academic Work and Its Evaluation
    1. Recorded Evaluation of Student Performance
    2. The Grading System
    3. Change of Grade
    4. Grade Points and Grade Point Averages
    5. Retention, Probation, Dismissal and Reinstatement
    6. Academic Misconduct
    7. Enrollment
    8. Academic Forgiveness
    9. Exceptions to University Wide Academic Policies
  3. Graduation and Degrees
    1. Requirements for Graduation with the Bachelor's Degree
    2. Granting of Degrees
    3. Graduation with Scholastic Honors
  4. Publications
    1. Publication Responsibility
  5. Organization for Conflict Resolution
    1. University Ombudsman
    2. Unit Level Grievance Procedures
    3. The Judicial Board
    4. The Court of Parking Appeals
  6. Procedures for Conflict Resolution
    1. General Provisions
    2. Informal Means of Dispute Resolution
    3. Complaint and Response
    4. Jurisdiction
    5. Prehearing Procedures & Administration of the Grievance System
    6. Hearing Phase
    7. Appeals Phase
    8. Other Powers & Responsibilities of the Judicial Board chair
    9. Procedures of the Court of Parking Appeals
  7. Policy and Procedures Concerning Financial Exigency
    1. Definition
    2. Declaration of Financial Exigency
    3. Emergence from Financial Exigency
    4. Timely Notice
    5. Review Procedures
  8. Policy and Procedures Regarding Academic Program Discontinuance

    Preamble

    1. Definitions and Exclusions
    2. Recommendations for Discontinuance of Active Academic Programs
    3. Recommendations for Discontinuance of Inactive Academic Programs
    4. Notice to the Faculty of Nonreappointment Due to Academic Program Discontinuance
    5. Impact on Students
  9. Guidelines for Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct
    Section 0.Statement of Policy
    1. General Provision
    2. Definitions
    3. Guidance and Procedures for Allegations, Assessment and Inquiry
    4. Guidance and Procedures for Investigation
    5. Administrative Actions and Sanctions
Policy Statement: 

Article I. Academic Schedules

As adopted by the University Senate March 19, 1970 and as amended in accordance with Article III, Section 4 of the Senate CODE.

Section 1. University Calendar

1.1.1 The Calendar Committee shall annually submit to the University Senate for approval a Calendar for the school year (fall semester, spring semester, summer session) following the ensuing year. This Calendar shall be in accordance with the common Academic Calendar approved by the Board of Regents.

Section 2. Class Schedule

1.2.1 The Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs shall meet annually with the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures for the purpose of reporting to the Committee all changes that have been made in the Schedule of Classes and enrollment procedures. During this annual meeting or at any additional meetings, which may occur, the Vice Provost should bring to the Committee any contemplated changes in the Schedule of Classes and enrollment procedures which would constitute a major change in policy and to seek approval of such major changes prior to their implementation. It shall be the responsibility of the Committee to review all routine changes brought to its attention in order to determine whether they constitute policy changes that should be brought to the attention of the Senate for action or for informational purposes.

Section 3. Final Examination Schedules

1.3.1 The Calendar Committee shall periodically review a final exam rotation and work with the Office of the University Registrar to ensure appropriate and equitable scheduling of final exams. The Calendar Committee shall include in their final report to the University Senate Executive Committee the alternative final exams and special exams approved by the Committee for the academic year.

1.3.2 A Comprehensive Final Examination is defined as an examination that tests over class content covering the entire term. A Section Examination is defined as an examination that tests over class content covering a unit, section, topic or part of the term, but does not cover the entire content of the class.

Normally the last examination in a course - whether a comprehensive Final Examination or a Section Exam - is administered at the appointed time during the regularly scheduled final exam period. An exam may be given during the last week of classes ONLY if it is a Section Exam preceding a Comprehensive Final Examination; this Comprehensive Final Examination must be administered at the appointed time during the regularly scheduled final exam period. If neither a Section Examination nor a Comprehensive Final Examination is to be given, the class is not required to meet at its appointed time during the regularly scheduled final examination period.

If a “take home” exam or an online exam is given in a class with a regular meeting time, it may not be due prior to the end of the regularly scheduled final exam period for the class. If a proctored or online exam is given for an online course, the due date shall be noted in the course syllabus. When the final of an online/non-regular course conflicts with a student's obligation to other regularly scheduled university classes, the student will be accorded the opportunity to take the final at a time not in conflict with other regularly scheduled university classes. The above does not apply to assignments such as projects, performances, or papers. These may be due or take place during the last week of regular classes. Projects, performances, paper, and other coursework may be due during finals week only in lieu of a final exam. This rule does not apply to coursework for which the student has received an extension.

Any exceptions to the above rules must be approved by the Calendar Committee. Petitions to the committee must be submitted at least three weeks before the last scheduled day of classes. Students' academic best interests shall be the criteria for the Calendar Committee's decisions on petitions. The Committee will consider a request for a special final exam time only if the request encompasses ALL sections of a course. The Committee will not accept petitions for special final examination times for the purpose of consolidating single exam times for multiple sections taught by the same instructor.

Students should report violations of the above to the appropriate department head or dean, or to the Provost.

1.3.3 The instructor of a course shall decide whether a final examination is necessary unless the department in which a course is given (or the College or school, for courses, which are not listed in a department) makes that decision. Decisions by the department, the College, or school would normally relate to multisections or service courses. As early as possible in the course, the instructor shall inform the students of the function of the examination in determining the course grade.

1.3.4 Except for those excused in advance by the instructor, all students are required to take final examinations when prescribed. However, in the event that a student has three (3) or more final examinations scheduled on the same day, no student shall be obligated to take more than two exams on that day. No later than two weeks before Stop Day, the student shall notify the instructor(s) from the highest numbered course(s) not having a common final exam of the need to provide a make-up examination to be administered at a mutually acceptable time.

A Common Final Exam is defined as one approved for a particular multi-section course by the Calendar Committee in accordance with USRR 1.3.1, and published in the Schedule of Classes. Lecture classes with various discussion or laboratory sections are not “Common Finals” for the purpose of this regulation.

1.3.5 Within the guidelines established by these rules and regulations, the faculty of the College and each school of the University may establish regulations regarding the administration of final examinations, with due concern for students outside the College or school. (a) The faculty of the College and each school of the University may stipulate that if a final examination is required in a course offered in the school's curriculum, no other examination shall be given in that course in the week immediately preceding the period of final examinations. (b) The faculty of the College and each school of the University may allocate the decision-making responsibility for that stipulation in (a) supra to the faculty of each department within the College or school.

1.3.6 Each semester, the Calendar Committee shall make arrangements to inform students and faculty, through the Schedule of Classes, of the regulations governing final examinations and the appropriate procedures to be followed if questions arise about the application of the regulations. The Provost's Office shall remind faculty of these regulations by circulating copies each semester.

1.3.7 No university organization shall schedule events or meetings that require student participation or academic assessment (e.g., honors placement exams) during the final examination period, including Stop Day. Exceptions are allowed for local events or meetings that are scheduled on Saturday and up to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. A committee that must meet during the final examination period to resolve an academic issue may meet only at a time mutually convenient to all members. No other exceptions allowed unless by explicit direction of the Chancellor.

1.3.8 Students with a verifiable medical crisis of a relative or friend may be excused from being present for the final examination. It is the responsibility of the student to initiate discussion with the instructor, prior to the examination/test if possible. The instructor and student shall come to a mutually agreeable method of making up the missed examination.

1.3.9 Students currently serving as members of the Reserve or Active Components of the United States Armed Forces or the National Guard of the United States who receive temporary orders necessitating their absence from the final examination shall be excused from being present for the final examination. It is the responsibility of the student to initiate discussion with the instructor, prior to the final examination if possible.  The instructor and student shall come to a mutually agreeable method of making up the missed examination.

Section 4. Examinations, Quizzes and Tests Other Than Final Examinations

1.4.1 Examinations and tests other than final examinations shall normally be given during regularly scheduled class or laboratory hours.

1.4.2 Examinations and tests other than final examinations may be given at times other than regular class hours when the time and place are approved by the Calendar Committee and published in advance in the Schedule of Classes. The Committee will consider a request for a special exam time only if the request encompasses ALL sections of a course. The Committee will not accept petitions for special examination times for the purpose of consolidating single exam times for multiple sections taught by the same instructor. When such examinations conflict with a student's obligation to other regularly scheduled university classes the student shall be accorded the opportunity to take the examination or test at a time not in conflict with other regularly scheduled university classes. In the event of the cancellation of an examination due to an emergency, rescheduling of the examination shall be negotiated by the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs with the affected unit.

1.4.3 Examinations and tests other than final examinations should not be scheduled in conflict with mandated religious observances. In order to ascertain in a given class if a scheduled examination conflicts with a mandated religious observance, at the beginning of the semester the instructor shall ask students who may be affected to identify themselves privately so that a make-up examination may be scheduled at a mutually acceptable time.

1.4.4 Students with a verifiable medical crisis of a relative or friend may be excused from being present for scheduled examinations and tests. It is the responsibility of the student to initiate discussion with the instructor, prior to the examination/test if possible. The instructor and student shall come to a mutually agreeable method of making up the missed work.

1.4.5 Students currently serving as members of the Reserve or Active Components of the United States Armed Forces or the National Guard of the United States who receive temporary orders necessitating their absence from a scheduled examination, quiz, or  test shall be excused from being present  for the scheduled examination, quiz, or test.  It is the responsibility of the student to initiate discussion with the instructor, prior to the examination/test if possible.  The instructor and student shall come to a mutually agreeable method of making up the missed work.

Section 5. Required Textbooks and Supplies

1.5.1 Within each department it shall be the responsibility of the chairperson to make certain that all necessary steps are taken to assure that required textbooks and supplies are ordered in time to give reasonable assurance of their timely availability. In schools not having program or departmental organization, this shall be the responsibility of the dean.

Article II. Academic Work and Its Evaluation

Section 1. Recorded Evaluation of Student Performance.

2.1.1 The evaluation of student performance shall be based upon examinations, written papers, class participation and such other requirements as the instructor in each course may determine.

2.1.2 Information about the basis for evaluating students' performance and about the requirements that students must fulfill shall be made available to students, in print or electronic format by the 10th class day of the semester or, for summer or short courses, by the 5th class day. This requirement does not apply to discussion sections or labs for which a separate grade is not given, or to courses that meet by appointment, such as thesis, dissertations, directed studies, and directed projects. Students who are not in class when such information is provided are responsible for knowing it. Students are also responsible for subsequent announcements about course content and grading policies. This information should not be considered a contract; the information may be revised as the course progresses, provided students are given timely notice of such revisions.

2.1.3 The faculty of the College or a school may prescribe conditions under which individual students may be exempted from final examinations, provided that such exemption is based on grades received prior to the time of the final examination.

2.1.4 In cases where part of a class grade is based on attendance, a student shall not be penalized for absence from regularly scheduled class activities which conflict with mandated religious observances. In cases of conflicts between regularly scheduled class activities and mandated religious observances, the student is responsible for initiating discussion with the instructor to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

2.1.5 The evaluation of student performance is the responsibility and privilege of the faculty. If this responsibility is delegated to a Teaching Assistant or an Assistant Instructor, the faculty member or members in charge of the course retain the right to assign the final course grade.

Section 2. The Grading System

2.2.1 The letters A, B, C, D, S (satisfactory), CR (credit), and + shall be used to indicate passing work.

2.2.1.1 The grade of A will be reported for achievement of outstanding quality.

2.2.1.2 The grade of B will be reported for achievement of high quality.

2.2.1.3 The grade of C will be reported for achievement of acceptable quality.

2.2.1.4 The grade of D will be reported for achievement that is minimally passing, but at less than acceptable quality.

2.2.2 The letters F, U (unsatisfactory), and NC (no credit) shall indicate that the quality of work was such that, to obtain credit, the student must repeat the regular work of the course

2.2.3 The letters W and I may be given. The letter I shall indicate incomplete work, such as may be completed without re-enrollment in the course. The letter W shall indicate withdrawal for which no credit or grade point is assigned.

2.2.3.1 The letter I should not be used when a definite grade can be assigned for the work done. It shall not be given for the work of a student in any course except to indicate that some part of the work has, for reasons beyond the student’s control, not been done, while the rest has been satisfactorily completed. At the time an I is reported on the electronic roster, the character and amount of work needed, as well as the date required for completion and lapse grade if further work is not completed by this date, should be indicated.

2.2.3.2 A student who has an I posted for a course must make up the work by the date determined by the instructor, in consultation with the student, which may not exceed one calendar year from the original grade due date for the semester in which the course is taken, or the last day of the term of graduation, whichever comes first. An I not removed according to this rule shall automatically convert to a grade of F or U, or the lapse grade assigned by the course instructor, and shall be indicated on the student’s record.

2.2.3.3 Changes beyond a year or extensions to the time limit may be granted by the dean’s representative upon submission of a petition from the student containing the endorsement of the course instructor who assigned the I grade, or the department chairperson if the instructor is unavailable. After the I grade is converted to a grade of F or U, the grade may only be changed in accordance with USRR Article II, Section 3.

2.2.3.4 No graduate student will be allowed to take oral comprehensive exams if an I grade is currently listed on the student’s transcript.

2.2.4 The College or any school may use the letter P to represent satisfactory progress during one semester of work for which a grade will be given only upon the completion of the course or project in a subsequent semester.

2.2.5 The College or any school may use the letters SP (Satisfactory Progress), LP (Limited Progress), NP (No Progress) only for dissertation and thesis hours or their approved equivalents.  In the case of a completing student, the grade assigned to the final thesis or dissertation hour enrollments must be SP. [Effective Spring 2017]

2.2.6 The University fall and spring semesters each consist of seventy-three instructional days. The withdrawal period is divided into three instructional-day time segments:

a. Period 1: the first fifteen (15) instructional days of the semester or the first seven (7) instructional days of summer session (See 2.2.6.1 and 2.2.6.2);

b. Period 2: beginning with the sixteenth (16th) instructional day through the sixtieth (60th) instructional day of the semester or the eighth (8th) instructional day through the thirtieth (30th) instructional day of summer session (See 2.2.6.1 and 2.2.6.3);

c. Period 3: beginning with the sixty-first (61st) instructional day through the last day of classes for the semester or the thirty-first (31st) instructional day through the last day of classes for the summer session (See 2.2.6.4).

NOTE: The three time periods of instructional days for any course that has fewer instructional days than a normal semester shall be calculated on the basis of a percentage that the instructional days of the course in question represent relative to a normal semester of 73 instructional days. For example, a course of five weeks duration with a total of 25 instructional days represents one-third the length of a normal semester. Thus, Period 1 would include the first five (5) instructional days of the course, Period 2 would begin with the 6th and continue through the 20th instructional day and Period 3 would begin with the 21st instructional day and continue through the last day of the class.

[Revised 75 to 73 8/2011, removed KU Continuing Education withdrawal policy (Independent study courses changed from a 6 month to semester based format 8/30/11]

2.2.6.1 Course withdrawal policy and procedure are determined by the individual time period (see 2.2.6, 2.2.6.2, 2.2.6.3, 2.2.6.4 and 2.2.6.5). These rules apply to both undergraduate and post-baccalaureate courses, other than Law School courses, unless specifically excluded in accordance with 2.2.6.2.

2.2.6.2 Each academic dean shall submit to the Provost a list of courses such as internships and practica that are to be excepted from 2.2.6. Upon approving the list of proposed exceptions, the Provost shall provide it to the University Registrar.

2.2.6.3 During Period 1, a student may withdraw from a course by canceling their enrollment in that course. The course will not appear on the student's official record.

2.2.6.4 During Period 2, a student seeking to withdraw from a course must follow the withdrawal procedures of the College or School in which the student is enrolled. A student who withdraws during Period 2 shall receive a grade of W, which will appear on the student’s academic record but will not be included in computing the grade point average. Neither the instructor nor the College or School is entitled to withhold approval of the withdrawal, but the College or School can reinstate enrollment under the provisions of USRR 2.6.5. The University Registrar shall maintain and make available information regarding withdrawal procedures of each school and the College. It is the responsibility of the student to take the necessary steps to effect the withdrawal before the deadline established under USRR 2.2.6, above.

2.2.6.5 During Period 3, a student cannot withdraw from a course. The course grade will be determined by the student's overall academic performance.

2.2.6.6 After a student completes a course and a letter grade has been assigned, including an "Incomplete" where appropriate, retroactive withdrawal from the class is not allowed, except in accordance with USRR 2.3.3.

2.2.7 The withdrawal of a student from the University shall be reported by the dean of the College or the school to the University Registrar for posting to the permanent record after consultation with the appropriate personnel dean. The rules in USRR 2.2.6 shall apply except in accordance with USRR 2.3.3.

2.2.8 A student may elect to be graded on a scale of CR (credit) or NC (no credit) instead of on a scale of A, B, C, D, or F as provided below.

2.2.8.1 Students seeking the credit/no credit option in a semester-long course must register their choice in their dean's office during the 21st through the 30th instructional days of the semester. In all eight-week courses, including summer session, students must choose credit/no credit during the 11th through the 15th instructional day of class. In courses of other duration, students must choose credit/no credit during the week that 40 percent of the class sessions have been completed. In courses shorter than one week, students must choose credit/no credit before the first class session. After the deadline, students may not alter their choices. 

2.2.8.2 A student may use the credit/no credit option for at most one course per semester.

2.2.8.3 For undergraduate students, the grade of CR (credit) will be received for grades of C- and above, and the grade of NC (no credit) will be received for grades of D+ and below. For graduate students, the grade of CR will be received for grades of C and above, and the grade of NC (no credit) will be received for grades of C- and below. [To be implemented Spring 2012]

2.2.8.4 The instructor will not be informed when a student has chosen this option, and will assign a conventional letter grade, which will then be converted by the University Registrar to CR or NC as appropriate.

2.2.8.5 Courses graded CR or NC will not count in computing grade point average. Courses graded CR will be included in the total hours counted toward graduation; courses graded NC will not count as hours earned.

2.2.8.6 No course graded CR or NC can count toward the satisfaction of the requirements for an undergraduate major or toward the satisfaction of the requirements for a graduate degree or a graduate certificate, except in the School of Law. Courses graded CR or NC may be taken in a student’s undergraduate major or in a student’s graduate program if the student does not need to count them toward the satisfaction of requirements. [To be implemented Spring 2012.]

2.2.8.7 The College, schools, departments, programs, and other academic units may establish degree requirements, major requirements, minor requirements, certificate requirements or other academic requirements requiring that the CR/NC grading option not be chosen for most or all of a student’s courses. [To be implemented Spring 2012]

2.2.9 Grade Replacement Policy in Repeat Courses.

If a student takes a course at KU, receives a D or F in the course, enrolls in and repeats the course at KU, the new grade may be used in place of the original grade for purpose of GPA calculation, subject to the limitations herein.

2.2.9.1 The course must be numbered 000-299 and have been taken in the Fall 2001 semester or thereafter. Classes taken from Fall 2001 through Summer 2007 must have been requested by the student during the semester as qualifying for this policy. Beginning in Fall 2007, this policy automatically applies to classes that meet the criteria outlined in this section.

2.2.9.2 The grade of D or F can not be the result of an academic misconduct sanction of “Reduction of Grade for the Course.”

2.2.9.3 Students may only repeat a course for grade replacement a maximum of five (5) times. This means a student may only repeat five courses once, or repeat a combination of a single course or multiple courses for a total allotment of five grade replacement opportunities.  Multiple repeats for grade replacement of a course are discouraged, but not explicitly prohibited. The time and date of registration of the course repeat(s) enrollment will be used to determine the limit of five repeat courses for grade replacement.

2.2.9.4 Each attempt to improve and replace a course grade by repeating a course will reduce the number of repeats for grade improvement available to the student, regardless of the grade earned in the repeat of a course.

2.2.9.5 For each attempt to improve and replace a course grade by repeating a course, the grade recalculation will happen by default using the higher of the original or repeated course grades as follows

2.2.9.5.1 If the higher grade was earned in a retake of the course, this will be considered course and grade replacement. The original course and grade will remain on the transcript, but will NOT be included in the calculation of GPA.

2.2.9.5.2 If the grade earned for any repeated course is lower than the original course grade, the lower grade will be shown on the transcript but will NOT be included in the calculation of the GPA.

2.2.9.5.3 If a student makes multiple attempts to replace a course grade by repeating the course multiple times (up to the limit of five times), and achieves a higher grade, this grade will be considered the course and grade replacement. The original and repeated courses and grades will appear on the transcript but the inferior grades will not be included in the GPA calculation.

2.2.9.6 Only the original course (department, number and original number of credit hours) may be retaken for course and grade replacement. A similar course (different department, or number, or credit hours) will not be considered for course and grade replacement.

2.2.9.7 This policy may not be used to replace course(s) and grade(s) that have been applied to a baccalaureate degree already awarded by the University of Kansas.

2.2.10 When it would not be appropriate to grade a course according to the grading system established above, the College or school may authorize the use of grades S and U in designated courses. A course to be graded S or U shall be identified prior to the beginning of the course in the Schedule of Classes. Approval to offer a course with the S and U grading system precludes the use of grades A, B, C, D, or F. The grade of S shall indicate the student did satisfactory work and these hours will count toward graduation. The U grade shall indicate the student's work was unsatisfactory and these hours will not count toward graduation. Grades of S and U will not count in computing the grade point average.

2.2.11 The School of Pharmacy may use the letter E (Excellent), in addition to S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory) and I (Incomplete) for field work (clinical rotations) for grades recommended by preceptors.

2.2.12 The dean of the College or a school may request permission of the University Senate to use a grading system other than herein provided for a specified trial period.

2.2.13 The grade of + shall indicate that credit was awarded on the basis of an examination or other appropriate experience or training, rather than as a result of the student completing the regular work of the course.

Section 3. Change of Grade

2.3.1 Unless the provisions of 2.3.2 obtain, no change in a grade shall be made after it is filed with the University Registrar except upon the official request of the faculty member in charge of the course. The request must be made within one calendar year of the original grade due date for the semester in which the course is taken. The Registrar shall notify the chairperson of the department in which the course is given, with a copy to the originating faculty member. Such a change may be made only if (1) the original grade resulted from an error, or (2) the original letter was I or P or (3) due to sanctions imposed in the case of academic misconduct. In any of these cases, the change of letter shall not include the change to a W. For purposes of this provision, an official request includes an electronic request through online processes developed by the Registrar.

2.3.2 In the following exceptional cases a committee of at least three faculty members appointed by the chairperson of the department in which the course is given may review a student's work and assign the course grade:

2.3.2.1 When a faculty member who has been charged with and found guilty of sexual harassment or academic misconduct has assigned a grade to the student who has pressed charges.

2.3.2.2 When a clerical error is suspected in a course grade assigned by a faculty member who has become seriously ill and incapacitated or has died or whom the chairperson of the department in which the course is given cannot locate with due diligence.

2.3.2.3 When a student is found guilty of academic misconduct after the course grade has been assigned by a faculty member who has become seriously ill and incapacitated or has died or whom the chairperson of the department in which the course is given cannot locate with due diligence.

2.3.2.4 When there is procedural irregularity in the assignment of the course grade. However, in such a case, the grade shall be assigned in accordance with section 2.3.5.3 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

2.3.3 In the most extreme and unusual circumstances a student may petition to either:

a. withdraw from all the courses in which the student was enrolled. In this case a properly constituted committee from the school or College in which the student was enrolled may assign the letter W in all courses of that semester. The faculty members (s) in charge of the course(s) need not be consulted.

Or

b. if the student is asking for selective relief in a course in which the student was enrolled, a properly constituted committee from the school or College in which the course was taken may assign, after consultation/concurrence with the faculty member in charge of the course, the letter I, incomplete, or W, withdrawal. If the incomplete is assigned, it is to be in accordance with University Senate Rule 2.2.3. The work necessary to complete the course and remove the incomplete is to be determined by the faculty member in charge of the course. If the faculty member in charge of the course is unavailable or otherwise unable to provide a regime of work to complete the course, the department will take responsibility to determine the required work.

Each course is to be considered separately but the same committee may consider more than one course at the discretion of the dean of the school responsible for the course.

2.3.4 To insure uniform implementation of these procedures a) each school and the College will develop a written policy for the guidance of the committee and b) each school or College will adopt a uniform policy as to whether concurrence or only consultation is required. The policies are to be made available to faculty and student.

2.3.5 A student may initiate a grade appeal of a final course grade if the student believes that there has been an improper application of the grading procedure announced for the course by the instructor. Students who have other grievances should see Article V.

2.3.5.1 Each academic unit within the University shall provide its members access to an exclusive procedure for appeal of a final course grade, which shall be the sole procedure available to such members at the unit level.

2.3.5.2 Such an appeal shall be made in accord with the procedures established by the unit under Article V, section 2 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. To the extent that a grade appeal involves charges of improper application of grading procedures, the dispute shall be resolved under the applicable procedures for disputes involving improper application of grading procedure, and appeal to the Judicial Board shall be available in accordance with those procedures. To the extent that a grade appeal involves charges of academic misconduct, the dispute shall be resolved under the applicable procedures for disputes involving academic misconduct, and appeal to the Judicial Board shall be available in accordance with those procedures.

2.3.5.3 If the Judicial Board sustains the student's appeal, the grade shall be assigned in accordance with Section 2.3.2 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

Section 4. Grade Points and Grade Point Averages

2.4.1 Grade points are numerical weights assigned to completed hours of academic work, according to the following schedule of values:

2.4.1.1 For each hour of grade A.....4 grade points

2.4.1.2 For each hour of grade B.....3 grade points

2.4.1.3 For each hour of grade C.....2 grade points

2.4.1.4 For each hour of grade D.....1 grade point

2.4.1.5 For each hour of grade F.....0 grade points

Individual schools or the College may adopt the use of plus or minus to describe intermediate levels of performance between a maximum of A and a minimum of F. Intermediate grades represented by plus or minus shall be calculated as .3 units above or below the corresponding letter grade.

No grade points are assigned for work graded P, I, W, S, or CR.

2.4.2 A grade point average is the quotient obtained by dividing the number of grade points earned by the number of hours attempted (i.e., those for which grades of A, B, C, D, or F are recorded).

2.4.2.1 In computing grade point averages all hours attempted (i.e., grade A, B, C, D, or F) shall be included, except for cases in which a student repeats a class that resulted in a D or F as outlined in 2.2.9. In this instance, the second grade earned, if a higher grade, shall be included, replacing the original grade earned, for up to five (5) courses.

2.4.2.2 A grade point average may be computed for the entire record of a student or for any segment thereof.

2.4.2.3 The grade point average of a group of students is the quotient obtained by dividing the sum of the grade points earned by the group by the sum of the hours attempted by the group (i.e., those for which grades of A, B, C, D, or F are recorded).

2.4.2.4 In the computation of grade point averages, the number of grade points earned in a course shall be defined in terms of the grade point system (See 2.4.1) in use in the College or school in which the course is given.

Section 5. Retention, Probation, Dismissal and Reinstatement

2.5.1 Standards for the above shall be set by the faculties of the College and the several schools.

Section 6. Academic Misconduct

2.6.1 Academic misconduct by a student shall include, but not be limited to, disruption of classes; threatening an instructor or fellow student in an academic setting; giving or receiving of unauthorized aid on examinations or in the preparation of notebooks, themes, reports or other assignments; knowingly misrepresenting the source of any academic work; unauthorized changing of grades; unauthorized use of University approvals or forging of signatures; falsification of research results; plagiarizing of another's work; violation of regulations or ethical codes for the treatment of human and animal subjects; or otherwise acting dishonestly in research.

Academic misconduct by an instructor shall include, but not be limited to, grading student work by criteria other than academic performance, willful neglect in the discharge of teaching duties, falsification of research results, plagiarizing of another's work, violation of regulations or ethical codes for the treatment of human and animal subjects, or otherwise acting dishonestly in research.

2.6.2 After consultation with the department chairperson, an instructor may, with due notice to the student, treat as unsatisfactory (1) any student work that is a product of academic misconduct, or (2) a student's performance for a course when there are severe or repeated instances of academic misconduct as defined in Section 2.6.1. If an instructor deems other sanctions for academic misconduct by a student to be advisable, or if a student wishes to protest a grade based upon work judged by an instructor to be a product of academic misconduct, or if a faculty member is charged with academic misconduct in connection with the assignment of a grade or otherwise, the case shall be reported to the Dean of the College or School in which the course is offered and processed in accord with applicable procedures.

2.6.3 If either party to a charge of academic misconduct or to a grade appeal involving a charge of academic misconduct is dissatisfied with the unit level resolution of the charge, either party may seek review by the Judicial Board in accordance with applicable procedures.

2.6.4 Instructors shall make clear, at the beginning of each course, their rules for the preparation of classroom assignments, collateral reading, notebooks, or other outside work, in order that students do not, through ignorance, subject themselves to the charge of academic misconduct. An instructor has the authority to set reasonable rules for classroom conduct. When an instructor judges that a student's behavior is disruptive or obstructive to learning, the instructor can request that the student leave the classroom. Refusal to comply with a request to leave a classroom can itself be grounds for a charge of academic misconduct.

2.6.5 The following sanctions may be imposed upon a student or an instructor for academic misconduct:

  • Admonition: An oral statement that the person's present actions constitute academic misconduct.
  • Warning: An oral or written statement that continuation or repetition, within a stated period, of actions that constitute academic misconduct may be the cause for a more severe disciplinary sanction.
  • Censure: A written reprimand for actions that constitute academic misconduct. Censure may include a written warning.

Other sanctions that may be imposed upon a student for academic misconduct are:

  • Reduction of Grade for specific work: Treating as unsatisfactory any work that is a product of academic misconduct. Reduction of grade may include the assignment of an F for that specific work.
  • Reduction of grade for the Course: Reduction of grade may include the assignment of an F in the course. If the charged student dropped or withdrew from the course prior to the outcome of the adjudication, the course will be reinstated and assigned the grade as determined by the outcome of the hearing.
  • Exclusion from Activities: Exclusion from participation in specified privileged or extracurricular activities for a period not exceeding one school year.
  • Transcript Citation for Academic Misconduct: The student’s transcript will state that the student has been cited for academic misconduct. This sanction will include a determination of the final grade in the course. This grade may be an “F.” The statement will be permanent unless the student applies to the University Provost for removal of the statement and the application is granted.
  • Suspension from a specific course: An instructor may suspend a student from the instructor's section of a course for academic misconduct. In cases involving physical violence or disruptive behavior, the suspension should occur immediately. In cases where a physical threat is made, the suspension should be reported to the KU Police Department. During suspension, a student is not permitted to withdraw, pending decision by the hearing committee. A suspended student may complete work for the course only if reinstated. Conditions for re-instatement to the course shall be stated by the instructor at the time of the suspension. These initial conditions are subject to review by the hearing committee. When suspending a student, the instructor shall, before the next meeting of the course, inform the chairperson of the department in which this course is offered. The department chairperson shall notify the student in person or by certified mail (postmarked on or before the day of the next class meeting) of the opportunity to be heard on the suspension. The department chairperson shall also inform the Vice Provost for Student Affairs and other appropriate offices according to guidelines of the academic unit involved. If the student requests a hearing, the appropriate procedures (See Section 2.6.2) of the School or College, or at the department level where feasible, shall be initiated within five working days. The suspension will remain in effect pending review. Because this sanction places an immediate burden upon the suspended student, the department is obligated to act promptly. Options in such review include: reassignment of the student to another section of the course; reinstatement of the student into the course; upholding the suspension. In case of suspension through the end of the semester, a grade will be assigned by the instructor, subject to review by the hearing committee.
  • Suspension: Immediate exclusion from all courses and other specified privileges or activities for a definite period not to exceed two years, subject to review by the hearing committee. The student's transcript will state that the student is suspended for academic misconduct. The statement will be permanent unless the student applies to the University Provost for removal of the statement and the application is granted.
  • Expulsion: Termination of student status for an indefinite period. The conditions of readmission, if any, shall be stated in the order of expulsion. The student's transcript will state that the student is expelled for academic misconduct. The statement will be permanent unless the student applies to the University Provost for removal of the statement and the application is granted.

Other sanctions that may be imposed upon an instructor for academic misconduct are:

  • Recommendation of Suspension: Recommendation to the Chancellor that an instructor be excluded from teaching and other specified privileges or activities for a definite period not to exceed two years.
  • Recommendation of Dismissal: Recommendation to the Chancellor that an instructor be dismissed from the University staff for an indefinite period. More than one sanction may be imposed upon a student or an instructor for the same offense or offenses.

2.6.6 All sanctions of Reduction of Grade for Specific Work, Reduction of Grade for the Course, Exclusion from Activities, Transcript Citation for Academic Misconduct, Suspension from a Specific Course, Suspension, and Expulsion that are applied by the College and the Schools or their designated departments will be communicated to the Office of the Provost.

2.6.7 Students who receive a D or F in a course as a result of a sanction of Reduction of Grade for the Course due to a finding of academic misconduct by a unit, school, or Judicial Board hearing body may repeat the course but are not eligible for the grade-replacement provisions of USRR 2.2.8.

Section 7. Enrollment

2.7.1 No student may enroll for more than twenty hours per semester except by permission of the dean of the College or the school in which the student is enrolled. The College and the schools may adopt more restrictive policies.

Section 8. Academic Forgiveness

2.8.1 An undergraduate student may request the Office of the University Registrar, with the approval of the Dean, to invoke academic forgiveness in cases where the following conditions are met. (The term "academic forgiveness" shall mean the suspension of University Senate Rules and Regulations, Article 2.4.2.1, in order to discount the coursework of past academic semester(s).)

2.8.2 Academic forgiveness shall be available once to those students who meet these requirements.

1. Have had a break of at least four (4) years in their attendance at the University of Kansas. A student will be considered in "attendance" during a semester or term if the student is enrolled in a least one KU course in residence, earning a grade of A-F, S, U, CR, or NC.

2. Had earned a cumulative University of Kansas G.P.A. of less than 2.0 immediately prior to leaving K.U.

3. At the time of petition, have earned a G.P.A. of at least 2.5 in at least 12 credit hours earned after returning to K.U. All grades earned at K.U. since returning will be used to make this G.P.A. calculation.

2.8.3 When invoking academic forgiveness, a student may designate not more than three (3) academic terms to be discounted in the student's academic record. Only University of Kansas terms completed prior to returning to the University of Kansas may be designated.

2.8.4 Academic terms discounted for a student using the academic forgiveness policy shall not be computed into the student's current G.P.A., nor shall any hour completed or degree requirements satisfied in these discounted terms be counted toward a degree granted from the University of Kansas.

2.8.5 When invoking academic forgiveness, a student must obtain the approval of the Dean in the student's academic unit. The student then submits the request for academic forgiveness to the University Registrar.

Section 9. Exceptions to University Wide Academic Policies

2.9.1 Under exceptional circumstances, a student or, if a physical or mental incapacity prevents the student from filing an appeal, another individual on the student's behalf, may petition for an exception to a University-Wide  academic policy. The petitioner must follow the procedures on the FacEx, Exception to University-Wide Academic Policy Form (link).  If the instructor (instructor's approval required when adding, changing hours, changing sections or levels) and the department Chair believe exceptional circumstances exist, the petition shall be forwarded with a recommendation to the Dean of the College or School. If the Dean (or the dean's designee) believes exceptional circumstances exist, the petition shall be forwarded with a recommendation to the chair of the Faculty Senate Executive committee (FacEx). FacEx determines the specific content of the form according to this  subsection.  For purposed of this subsection, lack of knowledge of the appropriate policy is not an exceptional circumstance. FacEx's decision regarding the petition request is final.

Article III. Graduation and Degrees

Section 1. Requirements for Graduation with the Bachelor's Degree

3.1.1 The minimum requirement for graduation with a bachelor's degree shall be 120 credit hours of which at least 45 hours shall be in junior-senior courses, at least 30 hours of residence courses at the University of Kansas (as defined in Article IV of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations), and a 2.0 minimum cumulative grade point average for the coursework taken in residence at the University of Kansas.

3.1.2 All University of Kansas coursework counted towards the degree must be completed no later than the degree certification deadline. All transcripted coursework from other institutions must be completed and received by the degree certification deadline to count towards graduation in that semester. Exceptions may be granted by the School/College only in the instance of a transcript received after the degree certification deadline. No exceptions will be granted for coursework completed or in-progress beyond the degree certification deadline. The degree certification deadline will be determined by the Office of the University Registrar in conjunction with the Schools/College.  

3.1.3 It shall be the responsibility of the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to enforce the University requirements for graduation listed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. In extraordinary circumstances, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee may grant exceptions to these requirements.

Section 2. Granting of Degrees

3.2.1 Academic degrees shall be granted by the authority of the Board of Regents upon the recommendation of the faculties of the College and the several schools.

3.2.2 Honorary degrees are granted by the authority of the Board of Regents upon the recommendation of the Chancellor. Following Board of Regents Policy, the University of Kansas awards honorary degrees to exceptional persons of notable intellectual, scholarly, professional, or creative achievement, or service to humanity.

3.2.2.1 A candidate’s qualifications must be deeply grounded in a career of scholarship, research, creative activity, service to humanity, or other profession consistent with the academic endeavors of the University.

3.2.2.2 In consultation with the University Senate Executive Committee, the Chancellor shall establish, and may from time to time amend, a policy for awarding honorary degrees. The policy shall provide for the degrees to be awarded and create procedures to solicit nominations, gather information, and recommend candidates to the Chancellor.

Section 3. Graduation with Scholastic Honors

3.3.1 Provisions for granting degrees "with distinction" and "highest distinction" may be made by the faculties of the College and the several schools of the University, provided that degrees with distinction shall not be awarded to more than l0 percent of the class of the College or a school.

3.3.2 Provisions for granting departmental honors may be made in accordance with the regulations of the faculty of the College or the school concerned.

Article IV. Publications

Section 1. Publication responsibility

4.1.1 Any publication funded through or produced by a University agency is the responsibility of the editor of the publication. Such editor bears full civil and criminal responsibility for the form and content of the publication. Each such publication must identify the responsible editor.

In this regulation, the term "editor" means the person, board, or other agency that determines the form and content of the publication.

Article V. Organization for Conflict Resolution

Section 1. University Ombuds Office

5.1.1 Appointment. The University Ombuds and Faculty Ombuds shall each be appointed by the Chancellor from among a panel of three candidates presented by a search committee to be assembled by the University Senate Executive Committee.

5.1.2 University Ombuds.  The University Ombuds is a full-time position; due to the independent nature of the University Ombuds, it is not a serve at the pleasure position.  Both the University Ombuds and Faculty Ombuds (see 5.1.3) shall communicate regularly with the Provost and the University Senate Executive Committee.

5.1.3 Faculty Ombuds.  Faculty will be represented in the staffing of the Ombuds Office through part time appointment of one or more tenured faculty members to the position of Faculty Ombuds.  Faculty member serving in the Ombuds Office shall serve a three-year term.  The Faculty Ombuds shall be eligible for reappointment. 

5.1.4 Qualifications. The University Ombuds shall possess a knowledge of current professional ombuds standards and practices and a post-baccalaureate degree. The Faculty Ombuds shall possess a comprehensive knowledge of the University organization, and shall, at the time of initial appointment, have completed at least ten years of service at the University of Kansas.

Section 2. Unit Level Grievance Procedures

5.2.1 Establishment and Maintenance of Unit Level Grievance Procedures.

5.2.1.1 Larger Organizational Units. The following organizational units shall be required to establish and maintain grievance procedures for utilization by directly subordinate units:

a. The Office of the Chancellor

b. The Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

c. The Office of the Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Edwards Campus

d. The offices of the Vice Provost for Student Affairs, Research, and Information Services

e. The several schools and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

5.2.1.2 Subordinate Units. Subordinate units may choose to establish, create, adopt or maintain their own grievance procedures or they may elect to have grievance procedures implemented by the larger organizational entity within which the unit is contained.

5.2.1.3 Review and Approval. Any organizational unit that has developed a grievance procedure shall submit it to the General Counsel of the University. Unless the General Counsel determines that the procedure as submitted is in conflict with existing law, rules of the Board of Regents, or rules or regulations of the University, it shall become effective thirty calendar days after such submission or upon written approval of the General Counsel, whichever occurs first.

5.2.1.4 Election of Larger Unit Procedure. Any unit which has elected to place itself under the grievance procedure of the respective larger entity shall report this election in writing to the Judicial Board Chair, with information copies to the General Counsel of the University, the Office of Institutional Opportunity & Access, and the University Ombudsman.

5.2.2 Essential Elements of Grievance Procedures. Because of the great variations in size and functions of units, standardization of grievance procedures is considered inappropriate. However, each such procedure shall comply with the Procedural Guarantees of Article XII, section 2, of the University Senate Code, and shall provide for:

a. a time limit, not to exceed thirty calendar days from the written submission of a complaint to its hearing, with provisions for extensions for good cause;

b. the opportunity for each side to submit supporting materials and introduce supporting witnesses;

c. the opportunity for each side to be informed of material supporting the action or position of the other side;

d. the exclusion of any party involved in the complaint from the rendering of any decision;

e. the creation of a record of the proceeding, including audio recording of the hearing and a written decision of the hearing body.

5.2.3 Dissemination of Information. Information concerning the procedure adopted by a unit shall be easily available to all persons employed in or using the services of the unit. Copies of the procedures with effective dates shall also be placed on file in the Policy Library by the chair, dean, vice provost, or their designee.

5.2.4 Change and Amendments. Any change of or amendment to a grievance procedure shall be subject to review and approval as provided in 5.2.1.3, above, and updated copies disseminated as provided in 5.2.3, above.

Section 3. The Judicial Board

5.3.1 Chair. The law member serving in their third or final year as member of the Judicial Board shall serve as its Chair. If, by reason of absence, disability or disqualification, the Chair is unable to serve, the law member next senior in terms of service on the Judicial Board shall assume the duties of chair. 

5.3.2 Effective Date of Membership. The terms of service on the Judicial Board shall commence on the l6th day of August, except that in the filling of a vacancy the appointment shall become effective on the day on which the appointee's acceptance is made known to the Judicial Board Chair.

5.3.3 Hearing Panels. All members of the Judicial Board shall be available for service on hearing panels, except that any member who has participated in grievance procedures on the same case or who in any other manner has been involved in the case shall not be asked to serve. Members of a hearing panel, five in number, shall be designated by the Judicial Board Chair as follows:

a. The Hearing Panel shall be chaired by a law member.

b. At least one member shall belong to the same appointment group (Article XI, Section 4 (a) (ii) to (vi) of the Senate Code) as the claimant or complainant, and one to the same group to which the respondent belongs.

c. If possible, at least one member should be of the same race as the complainant.

d. If possible, at least one member should be of the same sex as the complainant.

To ascertain the prior involvement of selected individuals, the Judicial Board Chair shall advise these five members of the Board by confidential communication of the nature of complaint, including the names of the parties involved, and call for members who have had any prior connection with the case to inform the chair of that fact without delay. In the case of the prior involvement of a selected Board member, a replacement shall be similarly chosen.

5.3.4 Appeals Panel. Appeals panels shall consist of at least one law member who did not serve on the hearing panel, if any, in the particular case. This law member shall chair the appeals panel. The Judicial Board Chair and the chair of the appeals panel shall designate two additional members of the Judicial Board who did not participate in the procedures in the same case at any other level. In matters of sexual harassment, panel members must have University-approved training in handling and adjudicating matters of sexual harassment.

5.3.5 Ad Hoc Law Members. If no regular law member is available to serve on a hearing or appeals panel, the Judicial Board Chair may designate an ad hoc law member to serve on that panel. An ad hoc law member shall meet the requirements for law members contained in Article XI, Section 4(a) (i) of the University Senate Code.

Section 4. The Court of Parking Appeals.

5.4.1 Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of the Court of Parking Appeals shall be elected by the membership of the Court which shall be called to meet in April or May of each year. At the same meeting, after the Chief Justice has been elected and has assumed the chair, an associate Chief Justice shall be elected by the membership. The Associate Chief Justice shall assume the Chief Justice's duties if the Chief Justice should resign, is absent for a prolonged period of time, or is disabled or disqualified.

5.4.2 Administrator. The Chief Justice shall be the administrative officer of the Court of Parking Appeals. The Chief Justice may call upon the associate Chief Justice to assist with the administrative tasks of the Court.

5.4.3 Court members shall be selected to participate in Court proceedings in accordance with selection procedures established by the Court. The Chief Justice shall designate one member of each panel to chair that panel.

5.4.3.1 Challenges. Parties to a Court proceeding may challenge a member of the Court for grounds constituting prejudice or bias on the part of the member, which challenge shall be sustained only by the concurrence of a majority of the Court. Members may disqualify themselves for cause from participating in a particular proceeding, subject to concurrence in the member's   disqualification by a majority of the Court.

Article VI. Procedures for Conflict Resolution

Section 1. General Provisions

6.1.1 Purpose. The purpose of these procedures is to resolve conflict situations within the University community. The governance system does not command sanctions and has no enforcement powers. Its aim, therefore, is to find the facts of a contested situation and to make reasonable and appropriate recommendations to those having the legal power and the responsibility to act. Recommended action should be in the University community's best interest and protective of the rights of the individuals involved

6.1.2 Protection of Privacy Interests. Except when all parties agree that the hearing shall be public, all proceedings provided for in the Article shall be closed to all but the parties involved. Public reports by any of the boards, committees or bodies involved may refer to the types of cases heard but no mention may be made of the names of the individuals nor any reference made which would permit their identification. The names of individuals, the nature of a complaint, and the resolution of the case may be disclosed, however, for purposes of action taken under USRR 6.5.4 against an individual for abuse of the grievance process, or pursuant to USRR 6.8.4.2 for the purpose of identifying multiple or successive grievances involving substantially the same underlying occurrence or events.

6.1.3 Prohibition of Retaliation. No person shall be subjected to discharge, suspension, discipline, harassment, or any form of discrimination for having utilized or having assisted others in the utilization of grievance procedures. Provided, however, that sanctions for a pattern of frivolous and abusive grievances may be imposed under USRR 6.5.4.

6.1.4 Absolute Judicial Immunity. Absolute judicial immunity shall exist for all members of unit level hearing bodies, mediators selected pursuant to USRR 6.2.3.3, the University Ombudsman, the Judicial Board and any of its panels, the Faculty Rights Board , the University Senate Executive Committee, and the Faculty Executive Committee with respect to their services as members of those units in any case, controversy, original proceeding, appeal, or any other matter in which they have served in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or other conflict-resolving role, including mediation, involving any matter over which the unit has jurisdiction.

6.1.5 Computation of Time. Unless otherwise expressly provided, in applying the time limitations set forth in this Article, the computation of elapsed time shall be in accordance with calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and days on which, in accordance with University Calendar, classes do not meet. Because parties, members of decision making bodies, and other individuals relevant to a particular dispute may not be available during the Summer months, the Judicial Board and other tribunals shall accept complaints from May 15 to August 15, but need not take action on them during that period. This provision does not prevent the Judicial Board or other tribunals from scheduling a hearing or taking other action during the summer months if the Board or other tribunal determines that such action is appropriate and consistent with the rights of the parties.

6.1.6 Contrary Law. The provisions of these procedures shall be superseded by any contrary provision of state or federal law.

Section 2. Informal Means of Dispute Resolution

6.2.1 Generally. The collegial atmosphere of the University community is best served through informal compromise resolution of disputes. Thus, before pursuing formal grievance procedures, a grievant should ordinarily attempt to resolve the matter informally through direct or indirect consultation with the other party or through discussions with supervisory personnel.

6.2.2 Ombuds Office. The University and Faculty Ombuds shall be available (a) to receive and attempt to resolve individual grievances of members of the University community; and (b) to recommend procedural changes within the University in response to experience acquired in investigating individual cases.

6.2.2.1 Powers. The University and Faculty Ombuds shall have access to all administrative officials of the University and, in accordance with law, to all University records, including those of faculty members. They shall not have authority to take disciplinary action, reverse decisions, or circumvent existing University rules and procedures. They shall supplement, not replace, other means, where they exist, for redress of grievances. All proceedings in individual cases shall be held confidential by the Ombudsman unless otherwise authorized by the complainant.

6.2.2.2 Reports. The University and Faculty Ombuds shall at least annually make reports to the University community at large.

6.2.3 Mediation.

6.2.3.1 Generally. Informal mediation shall be available to resolve disputes within the University community; however, mediation shall not occur in cases alleging sexual harassment. Unless either party to a dispute waives mediation, mediation shall occur prior to a hearing on the dispute.

6.2.3.2 List of Mediators. A list of individuals willing to serve as mediators and with training and/or experience in dispute resolution shall be maintained by the Ombuds Office and the Judicial Board Chair, in consultation with others throughout the university community.

6.2.3.3 Selection of a Mediator. A mediator shall be selected by the parties from the list of mediators maintained by the Ombuds Office and the Judicial Board Chair, or the parties may agree on another individual to serve as mediator. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, they may request that the Ombuds Office and/or the Judicial Board Chair select a mediator.

6.2.3.4 Mediation Procedures. The procedures to follow in mediation shall be determined by the mediator in consultation with the parties.

6.2.3.5 Suspension of Time Limits. The running of any time limits in the procedures for dispute resolution, Article VI of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, shall be suspended during the mediation process; that is, the time from the initiation of the mediation process until it is terminated by the mediator or either party shall not count against any time limit contained in those procedures.

Section 3. Complaint and Response

6.3.1 Complaint. Dispute resolution procedures shall be initiated through the submission of a written complaint to the hearing body with jurisdiction of the matter pursuant to section 6.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

6.3.1.1 Contents. The complaint shall contain a statement of the facts underlying the complaint and specify the provision(s) of Code of Faculty Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct, University Senate Code, The University Senate Rules and Regulations, the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities, or other applicable rule, regulation, or law allegedly violated. The complaint shall also indicate the witnesses or other evidence relied on by the complaining party, and copies of any documents relevant to the complaint shall be attached to the complaint.

6.3.1.2 Copies to Respondents. The complaining party shall provide a copy of the complaint, with accompanying documents, to the respondent(s); i.e., the party or parties charged in the complaint The chair of the hearing body shall, upon receipt of a complaint, verify that a copy has been provided in accordance with this provision.

6.3.1.3 Time Limit on Complaints. Unless otherwise provided by law with respect to a specific category of complaint, no complaint shall be entertained in the hearing phase if more than six months have elapsed between the action or event complained of and the filing of the complaint. The period from May 15 to August 15 shall be counted for purposes of determining whether a complaint has been filed within the six-month limit. In exceptional circumstances, a majority of the relevant hearing body, upon written request of the complainant, may grant an extension to this time limitation.However, the six-month time limit shall not apply to complaints brought by the Chancellor to the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board, nor to complaints of sexual harassment.

6.3.2 Response. Normally a respondent shall submit a written response to the hearing body within two weeks of receiving the complaint. However responses to complaints filed before the Faculty Rights Board shall be filed in accordance with the time frames set forth in Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations 7.3.1, responses to complaints filed under the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities shall be in accordance with the time frames established by the Vice Provost for Student Affairs, and responses to complaints handled in accordance with the Discrimination Complaint Resolution Process shall be filed in accordance with time frames set forth in University policy.

6.3.2.1 Contents. The response shall contain the respondent's statement of the facts underlying the dispute, as well as any other defenses to the allegations in the complaint. The response shall also indicate the witnesses or other evidence relied on by the respondent, and copies of any additional documents relevant to the response shall be attached.

6.3.2.2 Copy to Complaining Party. The respondent shall provide a copy of the response to the complaining party. Upon receipt of the response, the chair of the hearing body shall verify that a copy of the response has been provided in accordance with this provision.

6.3.2.3 Waiver of Defenses. Failure to respond or to raise a particular defense in the response shall not prevent the raising of the defense at a subsequent hearing or appeal unless the complaining party is prejudiced thereby.

Section 4. Jurisdiction

Disputes involving the following subject areas shall be heard by the following bodies:

6.4.1 Disputes involving faculty members and questions of academic freedom, tenure rights, dismissal, appointment, promotion, reappointment, and non-reappointment:

6.4.1.1 Hearing. Faculty Rights Board. (University Senate Code Article XIII. Section 3. Functions)

6.4.1.2 Appeal. None within the university. (Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations Article VII. Section 3.)

6.4.2 Disputes involving questions of faculty rights and responsibilities:

6.4.2.1 Hearing for Major Sanctions (censure, suspension and dismissal). Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board. (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, Article III. #7)

6.4.2.2 Hearing for Minor Sanctions (warning and restitution). Hearing Panel of the Judicial Board. (Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, Article III. #7)

6.4.2.3 Appeal. An appeals panel of the Judicial Board may consider an appeal from a Judicial Board hearing pursuant to Section 6.7 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, but no appeal is available within the university for hearings on major sanctions conducted by the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board. (Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations Article VII. Section 3)

6.4.2.4 Merit Salary. Disputes involving merit salary increases for faculty and unclassified staff shall be resolved through the Office of the Provost, and neither the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board nor the Judicial Board shall have jurisdiction to consider merit salary disputes either at a hearing level or on appeal.

6.4.3 Disputes involving alleged academic misconduct by faculty or students and alleged violations of student rights by faculty or staff:

6.4.3.1 Hearing. Appropriate unit level grievance procedure or Judicial Board hearing panel. Hearings shall be held at the smallest unit with jurisdiction that has adopted procedures pursuant to section 5.2.1 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, or in the event that a grievance is filed against an administrator of that unit, the next larger unit. However, a Judicial Board hearing panel shall hear the dispute if:

a. the parties agree to hold the hearing before a judicial board hearing panel; or

b. either party petitions the Judicial Board Chair for a Judicial Board hearing, specifically alleging reasons why a fair hearing cannot be obtained at the unit level, and the Judicial Board Chair grants the petition. A copy of any such petition shall be made available to the opposing party, who shall have the opportunity to respond.

6.4.3.2 Appeal. An appeals panel of the Judicial Board may consider an appeal from either a unit level or Judicial Board hearing pursuant to section 6.7 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. Larger units do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from subordinate units.

6.4.3.3 KU Mediated/Online Courses. Students/Faculty may opt to participate in the hearing or appeal in person (at their own expense) or by conference call if the course is taken from a distance greater than 150 miles from Lawrence.

6.4.3.4 Professional Standards. When a state licensing or regulatory body has delegated to an academic unit the authority to enforce legally imposed professional standards, the Judicial Board shall not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing or consider an appeal from the application of those standards.

6.4.4 Disputes involving allegedly improper application of grading procedure:

6.4.4.1 Hearing. Appropriate unit level grievance procedure. Hearings shall be held at the smallest unit with jurisdiction that has adopted procedures pursuant to section 5.2.1 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, or in the event that a grievance is filed against an administrator of the that unit, the next larger unit.

6.4.4.2 Appeal. An appeals panel of the Judicial Board may consider the appeal pursuant to section 6.7 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

6.4.4.3 KU Mediated/Online Courses. Students/Faculty may opt to participate in the hearing or appeal in person (at their own expense) or by conference call if the course is taken from a distance greater than 150 miles from Lawrence.

6.4.5 Disputes involving allegations of discrimination on the basis of race (including racial harassment), religion, color, sex (including pregnancy, sexual harassment, and sexual violence), disability, national origin, ancestry, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, gender identity, and gender equity.:

6.4.5.1 Investigation of complaint. Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access. (See the University of Kansas Discrimination Complaint Resolution Process.) All individuals involved in the adjudication of sexual harassment complaints shall receive special training regarding such complaints.

6.4.5.2 Appeal. In accordance with the provisions of the Discrimination Complaint Resolution Process, parties may appeal to the administrative officer or body appropriate to the individual’s status within the University.

6.4.6 Summons or citation for violation of parking and traffic rules:

6.4.6.1 Hearing. Court of Parking Appeals. (Section 6.9 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.)

6.4.6.2 Appeal. None within the University. (K.S.A. 74-3215)

6.4.7 Revocation of parking permit.

6.4.7.1 Hearing. Court of Parking Appeals (Article XI. Section.3 (b) of the University Senate Code).

6.4.7.2 Appeal. An appeals panel of the Judicial Board may consider the appeal (Section 6.9.6 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations).

6.4.8 Disputes involving Library Fines:

6.4.8.1 Hearing. Library Appeals Board. (Article XI. Section 7 of the University Senate Code.)

6.4.8.2 Appeal. None within the University.

6.4.9 Disputes involving alleged violations by a student of the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities (nonacademic misconduct).

6.4.9.1 Hearing. Vice Provost for Student Affairs. (Procedures of the Office of the Vice Provost for Student Affairs.)

6.4.9.2 Appeal. The decision may be reviewed by an appropriate administrative officer and/or an appeals panel of the Judicial Board may consider the appeal pursuant to section 6.7 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

6.4.10 Disputes involving alleged violations by a student of the Student Senate Election Code.

6.4.10.1 Hearing. Student Election Commission (Student Senate Election Code, Sec. 412).

6.4.10.2 Appeal. An appeals panel of the University Judicial Board may consider the appeal pursuant to section 6.7 of the University Senate Rules and regulations. (Student Senate Election Code, Sec. 500).

6.4.11 Disputes involving rights and responsibilities under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("Buckley Amendment."):

6.4.11.1 Hearing. Vice Provost for Student Affairs (Procedures of the Office of Vice Provost for Student Affairs under Article 22, Section 4, of the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities.)

6.4.11.2 Appeal. None within the University. (If a student believes the University is not in compliance with the Privacy Act, the student may file a complaint with the Family Policy Compliance Office of the U.S. Department of Education.)

6.4.12 Disputes involving alleged violations of Department of Student Housing policies and matters arising under Student Housing contracts shall be handled under the same procedures as violations of the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities under 6.4.9.

6.4.13 Disputes involving classification as a non-resident student for fee purposes:

6.4.13.1 Hearing. Committee on Residence Status (Kansas Administrative Regulations, 88-2-3).

6.4.13.2 Appeal. None within the University (Kansas Administrative Regulations, 88-2-4).

6.4.14 Disputes involving assessment or refunds of tuition and fees:

6.4.14.1 Hearing. Appeals Committee appointed by the Provost.

6.4.14.2 Appeal. None within the university.

6.4.15 Disputes involving employment-related issues of Unclassified Professional Staff members:

6.4.15.1 Review. A formal review of the grievance will be conducted in accordance with the Grievance Procedures for Personnel Policies and Procedures, Unclassified Professional Staff, Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor.

6.4.15.2 Appeal. Upon request by either party, a three-person review panel appointed by the Provost or the Provost's designated representative will review the decision of the unit, relevant documents, and written statements by either party. The review panel shall prepare written recommendations which shall be advisory to the Provost, or, in cases of disputes within the area of the Chancellor, to the Chancellor. A statement of final disposition shall be issued by the Provost or Chancellor or Chancellor's designee. The disposition is not appealable within the University [Grievance Procedures for Personnel Policies and Procedures, Unclassified Professional Staff].

6.4.16 Disputes involving employment-related issues of Graduate Teaching Assistants :

6.4.16.1 Disputes shall be resolved through the grievance and appeal procedure set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement between The University of Kansas and the Kansas Board of Regents and The Kansas Association of Public Employees (Representing Graduate Teaching Assistants at the University of Kansas, Lawrence), so long as the agreement is in force.

NOTE: Policies related to University Support Staff performance can be found in the University Support Staff Handbook .

Section 5. Prehearing Procedures and Administration of the Grievance System

In any matter pending before the Judicial Board in the hearing or appeals phase, the Judicial Board Chair may take the following actions:

6.5.1 Additional Information

6.5.1.1 Completion of Complaint, Appeal, or Response. The Judicial Board Chair may seek from either party additional information necessary to ensure that a complaint, appeal, or response is complete. Any information so obtained shall be made available to the opposing party.

6.5.1.2 Other Necessary Information. The Judicial Board Chair may, with notice to the parties, request such additional information from either party or other members of the university community as the chair determines may be necessary to provide for a fair and accurate resolution of the dispute.

6.5.2 Jurisdictional Rulings

6.5.2.1 Request of a Party. When a party to a dispute has requested an initial hearing before the Judicial Board under Section 6.4.3.1(b) of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, the Judicial Board Chair shall rule on the jurisdictional request and inform the parties in writing of the chairs decision and the reasons for it. If the chair determines that a hearing on the jurisdictional request is necessary, the Chair has discretionto schedule a hearing, with appropriate notice to the parties. The jurisdictional ruling of the chair shall not be reviewable.

6.5.2.2 Other Hearing Bodies. If a jurisdictional question arises in a dispute pending before another hearing body under Section 6.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, that body may request a jurisdictional ruling from the Chair of the Judicial Board. Any such ruling shall be considered binding on other hearing bodies within the university community, but may be reviewed by an appeals panel of the Judicial Board after a hearing on the dispute, provided that such an appeals panel would otherwise have jurisdiction under section 6.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

6.5.2.3 Choice of Forum. The Chair of the Judicial Board, the Office of the General Counsel of the University, the University Ombuds office, the Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access, and the Office of Legal Services for Students shall be available to render advice on informal and formal means of dispute resolution and to assist in the identification of the hearing body (or bodies) with jurisdiction over the matter. The complainant's choice of a hearing body is ordinarily final provided the hearing body has jurisdiction pursuant to section 6.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. The selection of one hearing body shall preclude subsequent recourse to other procedures within the university unless the hearing body selected lacks jurisdiction.

6.5.3 Involuntary Dismissal and Summary Judgment

6.5.3.1 Dismissal Without a Hearing. The Judicial Board Chair or any Judicial Board panel adjudicating a grievance or appeal may dismiss involuntarily or by summary judgment, without a hearing and upon the pleadings alone, any grievance or appeal on the grounds that:

a. the grievance or appeal, or another grievance or appeal involving substantially the same underlying occurrence or events has already been, or is being, adjudicated by proper University procedures;

b. the grievance or appeal has not been filed in a timely fashion;

c. the Judicial Board lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or any of the parties;

d. the grievance does not state a cause of action, that is, it fails to allege a violation of a University rule, or the appeal fails to state a valid ground for appeal;

e. the party filing the grievance or appeal lacks standing because that party has not suffered a distinct injury as a result of the challenged conduct and has not been empowered to bring the complaint or appeal on behalf of the university, or

f. the party filing the grievance has been denied the right to file grievances pursuant to USRR 6.5.4.

6.5.3.2 Dismissals for Which a Hearing is Required. The Judicial Board Chair or any Judicial Board panel adjudicating a grievance may dismiss involuntarily or by summary judgment, after a hearing based solely on the grounds for dismissal, any grievance on the grounds that:

a. the grievance fails to allege an infringement of commonly accepted standards of behavior within the University community;

b. the grievance is frivolous, or was filed for malicious or harassing purposes.

6.5.3.3 Dismissal for Nonparticipation. If a party who has filed a grievance complaint (the complainant) repeatedly and purposefully refuses or fails to participate in any proceeding related to the complaint, any party against whom the complaint has been filed (the respondent) may petition the Judicial Board Chair for an order of dismissal, and, upon finding that the complainant has refused or failed to participate in any such proceedings, the chairperson shall enter an order in the proceedings dismissing the complaint involuntarily and with prejudice in that matter or case against the complainant. In making a decision on the petition for involuntary dismissal with prejudice, the Judicial Board Chair shall consider and review the record of the proceedings and may take whatever other action the chairperson deems appropriate to determine the facts concerning the complainant's refusal or failure to participate.

6.5.3.4 Appeal of Dismissal

a. When a case is dismissed before an initial hearing on the merits of the complaint by the Judicial Board Chair or by a hearing panel under this section, the aggrieved party may appeal the dismissal to an appeals panel of the Judicial Board, provided an appeals panel would otherwise have jurisdiction over the case if a hearing on the merits of the dispute had been held. The appeal must be submitted in writing within 30 days after a grievance is dismissed. The appeals panel shall consider only the grounds for dismissal. An appeal from a dismissal by the Judicial Board Chair is not itself subject to dismissal by the Judicial Board Chair, with the exception of grievances dismissed under section 6.5.3.1(f) of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

b. The dismissal of an appeal after a hearing on the merits is not appealable.

6.5.4 Abuse of Grievance Process.

6.5.4.1 Cease and Desist Request. Whenever someone establishes a pattern of repeatedly filing frivolous grievances that harass colleagues and/or abuse the grievance system, the Chair of the Judicial Board should ask that person to desist.

6.5.4.2 Recommendation to Provost. In the event that the person fails to desist, the chair may recommend that the Provost deny the right to file grievances for a specified period of time not to exceed 5 years.

6.5.4.3 Action of the Provost. After reviewing the case, if the Provost disagrees with the Chair of the Judicial Board, the Provost shall so inform the chair and the complainant's grievances shall be duly processed. But in the event that the Provost concurs that the party has established a pattern of repeatedly filing frivolous grievances that harass colleagues and/or abuse the grievance system, the Provost may deny the right to file grievances for a specified period of time not to exceed five years.

6.5.4.4 Review. If the party in question wishes to contest the loss of right to file grievances, the party in question may request a hearing before an appeals panel of the Judicial Board.

Section 6. Hearing Phase

6.6.1 Application. This section applies to any case in which the Judicial Board holds an initial hearing.

6.6.2 Selection of Panel. After determining that the Judicial Board has jurisdiction, and that there is no basis for dismissing the case under section 6.5.3 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, the Judicial Board Chair shall promptly designate a hearing panel as provided for in section 5.3.3 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. Each side shall be entitled, within five days of being notified of the membership of the panel, to challenge any member of the hearing panel who has a conflict of interest or has been previously involved in the matter. The Judicial Board Chair shall rule on any such challenge, and if the chair finds good cause to remove the panel member, shall promptly designate a replacement.

6.6.3 Transfer of Record. Upon designation of the hearing panel, the Judicial Board Chair shall transfer the complaint, the response, any documentary evidence submitted by the parties or obtained under section 6.5.1 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, and any relevant correspondence to the law member who will chair the hearing panel.

6.6.4 Hearing Procedures

6.6.4.1 Scheduling a Hearing. The chair of the hearing panel shall schedule a hearing as soon as possible after receiving the record of the case from the Judicial Board Chair. Every effort should be made to schedule the hearing during regular working hours at a convenient time for the parties and the members of the hearing panel. However, if the chair of the hearing panel determines that no such time is available, the chair may schedule the hearing at any time the chair determines to be reasonable and appropriate.

6.6.4.2 Presentation by Parties. Each party shall have an equal opportunity to present evidence and arguments. The complaining party shall present evidence or arguments first, followed by the responding party. The chair of the hearing panel has discretion to , place reasonable time limits on each party's presentation of evidence and arguments. The availability and scope of any rebuttal is within the discretion of the chair of the hearing panel.

6.6.4.3 Admissibility of Evidence. Each party shall have the right to introduce witnesses and documentary evidence but reasonable advance notice of such introduction must be given to the other party and to the hearing panel. Strict rules of evidence do not apply, but the chair of the hearing panel may exclude evidence as irrelevant, unnecessary, or unduly prejudicial. Statements or admissions made as part of the mediation process are not admissible.

6.6.4.4 Recording of Hearings. All Judicial Board hearings shall be recorded by means of audio tape. All such recordings shall constitute part of the record of the hearing and shall be under the custody and control of the chair of the hearing panel until transmitted along with the record to the Judicial Board Chair. Access to the audio tapes shall be restricted to the parties, their authorized representatives, the members of the hearing panel, the members of any panel considering an appeal from the hearing, and any parties or decision makers involved in a proceeding for abuse of the grievance process under section 6.5.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations in which the complaint addressed at the hearing is at issue. Transcripts may be made of the contents of an audio tape at the sole expense of the requesting party or by other agreement of the parties.

6.6.5 Hearing Panel Decision

6.6.5.1 Timing. The hearing panel shall complete its hearing and prepare a recommendation within thirty days from the date on which the matter has been assigned to the panel. However, the chair of the hearing panel may extend this time limit for good cause.

6.6.5.2 Written Decision and Record. The hearing panel shall prepare a written decision that includes the panel's recommendation and a nontechnical statement of the factual and legal basis for the decision. The chair of the hearing panel shall submit the written decision to the Judicial Board Chair, who shall provide copies to the parties and to such administrative or supervisory personnel as are appropriate in light of the hearing panel's recommendation. The chair of the hearing panel shall also return the original record of the case, together with any additional documents and the tape recording of the hearing, to the Judicial Board Chair.

6.6.6 Additional Procedures. The Judicial Board may establish additional procedures to insure fairness and effectiveness of the hearing phase. Such procedures (and subsequent changes thereto) shall be submitted to the University Senate Executive Committee, the Provost, and the Chancellor for approval. The procedures shall insure prompt and fair handling of complaints but shall avoid the formalism of legal process. Copies of the procedures shall be supplied to all University offices to which they may be of interest.

Section 7. Appeals Phase

6.7.1 Scope of Application. This section applies to any case in which an Appeals Panel of the Judicial Board reviews the decision of a unit level proceeding, Judicial Board hearing panel, or specialized tribunal.

6.7.2 Initiation of Appeal and Response

6.7.2.1 Filing and Content of Appeal. Within thirty days following the rendering of a decision by any tribunal subject to review by an appeals panel of the Judicial Board under section 6.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, a dissatisfied party (the appellant) may file a written appeal with the Chair of the Judicial Board. The appeal shall indicate the specific errors attributed to the hearing body and the grounds for appeal under section 6.7.3 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. At the time of filing, the appellant shall provide the other party or parties with a copy of the appeal. The Judicial Board Chair shall verify that the other party or parties have received a copy of the appeal.

6.7.2.2 Response. The other party or parties in a case that has been appealed (the appellee(s)) under this provision may file a written response to the appeal within fourteen days of receiving the appeal. The appellee shall provide a copy of the response to the appellant and to any other parties to the appeal. The Judicial Board Chair shall verify that the appellant has received a copy of the response. Failure to raise a particular defense in a response shall not prevent the raising of the defense in the appellate hearing unless the appellant is prejudiced thereby.

6.7.3 Grounds for Appeal. An appeal to the Judicial Board shall be determined on the basis of the record of the initial hearing conducted by the unit, the Judicial Board, or other hearing body with jurisdiction under section 6.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. Unless otherwise provided by section 6.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations or other applicable provisions of the University Senate Code, University Senate Rules and Regulations, Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff, or state or federal law, an appeals panel may reverse or set aside the decision of the hearing body on the following grounds.

6.7.3.1 Failure to Follow Procedures. The decision of a hearing body may be set aside if the hearing body failed to follow required procedures. However, if the failure to follow procedures was harmless, that is, did not prejudice the appellant, the hearing body decision should be affirmed notwithstanding the procedural error. The burden shall be on the appellant to identify the prejudicial effects of any alleged procedural error.

6.7.3.2 Inconsistency with Applicable Provisions. The decision of a hearing body shall be set aside if applicable provisions of the University Senate Code, University Senate Rules and Regulations, Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff, Board of Regents policies or procedures, or state or federal law require a contrary result.

6.7.3.3 Factual Determinations Not Supported by the Record. The decision of a hearing body may be set aside if it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record compiled at the hearing. For purposes of this provision, a decision is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable person could find that the decision was justified on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, with due regard for any contrary evidence in the record. The appeals panel should bear in mind the superior opportunity of the hearing panel to judge the credibility of witnesses.

6.7.3.4 Arbitrary and Capricious Decisions. In exceptional cases, the decision of a hearing body may be set aside if it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. A decision is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion if it is based on improper considerations, entirely fails to consider an important aspect of the problem, or lacks a plausible explanation of the connection between the facts found and the recommendations made.

6.7.3.5 Review of Dismissal. In any case in which the dismissal of a grievance without a hearing on the merits under section 6.5.3 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations is appealed, the appeal shall be limited to the grounds for dismissal. If the case was dismissed without a hearing on the grounds for dismissal pursuant to section 6.5.3.1 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations, the appeals panel may consider the grounds for dismissal de novo; that is, it may reverse the dismissal and reinstate the grievance if it determines that the dismissal was in error.

6.7.4 Responsibilities of Judicial Board Chair

6.7.4.1 Dismissal of Appeal. Upon receipt of an appeal from a hearing panel decision, the Judicial Board Chair shall determine whether there is a basis for dismissal of the appeal under section 6.5.3.1 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.

6.7.4.2 Compilation of Record: When an appeal has been filed, the Judicial Board Chair shall ensure that the record for appeal is complete. The record shall include the initial complaint and response, any other documentary evidence and correspondence from the initial hearing, the tape recording of the initial hearing (or a transcript thereof), the written decision of the unit level hearing panel or specialized tribunal whose decision is under appeal, and the appeal and response or responses. If the Judicial Board Chair determines that the record for appeal is incomplete or that necessary information is omitted from the record, the chair may request such information from the parties, the unit level hearing panel or specialized tribunal, or other relevant individuals.

6.7.4.3 Selection of Appeals Panel: After determining that there is a basis for an appeal, the Judicial Board Chair shall promptly designate an appeals panel as provided for in section 5.3.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations. Within five days of being informed of the membership of the panel, any party may challenge any member of the appeal panel who has a conflict of interest or has been previously involved in the matter. The Judicial Board Chair shall rule on any such challenge, and if the chair finds good cause to remove the panel member, shall promptly designate a replacement.

6.7.4.4 Transfer of Record: Upon selection of the appeals panel, the Judicial Board Chair shall transfer the record of the case to the law member who will chair the appeal panel.

6.7.5 Hearing on Appeal

6.7.5.1 Scheduling of Hearing. The chair of the appeals panel shall schedule a hearing as soon as possible after receiving the record from the Judicial Board Chair. Every effort should be made to schedule the hearing during regular working hours at a convenient time for the parties and the members of the appeals panel. However, if the chair of the appeal panel determines that no such time is available, the chair may schedule the hearing at any time the determined to be reasonable and appropriate.

6.7.5.2 Presentation of Parties. Each party to the appeal shall have an equal opportunity to present arguments to the appeals panel. The appellant shall present arguments first, followed by the appellee(s). The chair of the appeals panel shall determine the length of presentation of the parties, and the opportunity for rebuttal, if any. The hearing on appeal is not an evidentiary hearing, and neither party shall be entitled to submit evidence. In exceptional cases, if the appeals panel determines that information not contained in the record is necessary for the resolution of the appeal, the panel may, with due notice to the parties, obtain such information in the form of testimony or documentary evidence.

6.7.5.3 Recording of Hearing. An audio recording shall be made of all hearings of Judicial Board Appeals Panels. All such recordings constitute part of the record of the appeal and shall be maintained by the chair of the appeals panel until transmitted along with the remainder of the record to the Judicial Board Chair. Access to the audio recordings shall be limited to the parties, their authorized representatives, the members of the appeals panel, and any parties or decision makers involved in a proceeding for abuse of the grievance process under section 6.5.4 of the University Senate Rules and Regulations in which the complaint addressed in the appeal is at issue. Transcripts may be made of the contents of an audio recording at the sole expense of the requesting party or by other agreement of the parties.

6.7.6 Decision on Appeal

6.7.6.1 Timing. The appeals panel shall complete its hearing and prepare a recommendation within thirty days from the date on which the matter was assigned to the panel. However, the chair of the panel may extend this time limit for good cause.

6.7.6.2 Written Decision and Record. The appeals panel shall prepare a written decision that includes the panel's recommendation and a nontechnical statement of the basis for the decision. The chair of the appeals panel shall submit the written decision to the Judicial Board Chair, who shall provide copies to the parties and to such administrative and supervisory personnel as are appropriate in light of the appeals panel's recommendations. The chair of the appeals panel shall also return the record of the appeal together with the tape recording of the hearing to the Judicial Board Chair.

6.7.6.3 New Hearing. If the appeals panel sets aside the hearing panel decision on one or more grounds, it may order that a new hearing be held. In exceptional cases, if the appeals panel determines that the proper resolution of the case is clear from the record on appeal, it may decide the merits of the case and make appropriate recommendations in its decision.

6.7.7 Additional Procedures. The Judicial Board may establish procedures to insure fairness and effectiveness of the appeals phase. Such procedures (and subsequent changes thereto) shall be submitted to the University Senate Executive Committee, the Provost, and the Chancellor for approval. The procedures shall insure prompt and fair handling of appeals but shall avoid the formalism of legal process. Copies of the procedures shall be supplied to all University offices to which they may be of interest.

          Section 8. Other Powers and Responsibilities of Judicial Board Chair

6.8.1 General Authority

6.8.1.1 Case Management. It shall be the responsibility of the Judicial Board Chair to ensure, to the best of  the chairs's ability, that matters submitted to the Judicial Board are processed in a prompt and fair manner. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Judicial Board Chair shall have all the powers specified in the University Senate Code and the University Senate Rules and Regulations, as well as the inherent authority to take such reasonable steps the chair determines to be necessary, provided that such steps do not unduly prejudice the rights of the parties and do not conflict with applicable provisions of the University Senate Code, the University Senate Rules and Regulations, the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff, Board of Regents policies and procedures, and other applicable rules, regulations, or law.

6.8.1.2 Information and Assistance. The Judicial Board Chair shall be available to provide information on the dispute resolution process and (1) the procedures for resolving grievances; (2) the applicable provisions of the University Senate Code, University Senate Rules and Regulations, Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff, Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities, or other applicable law; and (3) their procedural rights in any matter covered by the procedures for conflict resolution.

6.8.2 Follow up and Reports

6.8.2.1 Results of Particular Proceedings. The Judicial Board Chair shall report the outcome of any mediation, hearing or appeals proceeding to the University Senate Executive Committee and to any University administrative office affected.

6.8.2.2 Inquiries to Responsible Administrators. It shall be appropriate for the Judicial Board Chair to inquire of any party, office or other body to whom a recommendation has been addressed by the Judicial Board as to the status of the implementation of such recommendation.

6.8.2.3 Annual Report. The Judicial Board Chair shall report annually to the University Senate Executive Committee on the workload and effectiveness of the Judicial Board and shall make such recommendations for changes in the University Senate Code and University Senate Rules and Regulations as the chair deems advisable.

6.8.3 Annotation of University Senate Code and Rules and Regulations

6.8.3.1 Compilation. The Judicial Board Chair shall compile an annotated version of the University Senate Code, the University Senate Rules and Regulations, and other provisions applicable in disputes arising under these procedures. The annotated version of applicable provisions shall include brief statements of all Judicial Board decisions interpreting a provision. These statements shall identify the provision in question, the interpretive issue, the resolution of the issue by the hearing or appeal panel in question, and the date of the decision, but should not include information about the parties or details of the matter in dispute.

6.8.3.2 Availability. A copy of the annotated version of the University Senate Code and the University Senate Rules and Regulations shall be maintained in the office of the Judicial Board and provided to the Office of the University General Counsel, as well as any unit or specialized tribunal that requests a copy. The annotation(s) respecting any provision shall be available upon request to any interested person. When the application of a provision that has been subject to a prior interpretation is at issue in any matter pending before the Judicial Board, the Judicial Board Chair shall provide copies of the pertinent annotation(s) to the parties and the members of the panel who will be deciding the case. Members of a unit level hearing panel or specialized tribunal may inquire of the Judicial Board Chair whether prior interpretations of relevant provisions exist, and the Judicial Board Chair shall provide copies of the annotation(s) reflecting any such interpretation.

6.8.3.3 Effect. Prior interpretations are not binding on subsequent decision makers, but decision makers should bear in mind that inconsistent interpretation of applicable provisions undermines the fairness and predictability of the dispute resolution process. In the event that inconsistent interpretations arise, the Judicial Board Chair shall inform the University Senate Executive Committee of the inconsistency and recommend changes in the applicable provision to clarify its meaning.

6.8.4 Monitoring of Grievance Activity and Recordkeeping

6.8.4.1 General. The Office of the Judicial Board shall compile and maintain records of grievance activity and formal conflict resolution throughout the University Community.

6.8.4.2 Sharing of Information Concerning Multiple or Successive Grievances. If it comes to the attention of the Judicial Board Chair, Judicial Board Hearing Panel, Unit level Hearing Panel, or Specialized Tribunal that a party to a grievance may have made multiple or successive filings before different hearing bodies in relation to substantially the same underlying occurrence or events, the Judicial Board Chair, Unit Level Hearing Panel, or Specialized Tribunal may inquire of such other hearing bodies whether a grievance or complaint involving the underlying occurrence or events is currently pending before or has been decided by that body, and the status of any such grievance or complaint. The disclosure of such information to the Judicial Board Chair, Judicial Board Hearing Panel, Unit Level Hearing Panel, or Specialized Tribunal shall not be considered a violation of USRR 6.1.2.

6.8.4.3 Maintenance of Records. The Office of the Judicial Board shall retain the records submitted to it for a period of at least six years. The Office of the University General Counsel and the parties, if possible, shall be informed before the destruction of the record of any hearing or appeal.

6.8.5 Recording of Proceedings. Audio recordings shall be made of all hearings and appeals. Such audio recordings shall be made under the custody and control of the law member who chairs the hearing or appeals panel and shall be forwarded immediately to the custody and control of the University Archives. Access to the audio recordings or any transcripts produced there from shall be restricted to the parties, their authorized representatives and the members of the appropriate hearing or appeals panel. A request shall extend the destruction/erasure date for another six month period and may be renewed. Transcripts may be made of the contents of the audio tape at the sole expense of the requesting party or by other agreement of the parties.

6.8.6 Inconsistent External Time Limitations. If, in connection with any allegation of misconduct in scientific/scholarly research or sexual harassment, federal regulatory bodies impose time limitations or requirements inconsistent with the requirements of this Section 6 (USRR 6.6) the federally imposed time limitations or requirements shall supersede the provisions of this section 6 (USRR 6.6).

Section 9. Procedures of the Court of Parking Appeals

6.9.1 Adoption of Procedures. The Court of Parking Appeals shall establish procedures for the fair and timely consideration of cases involving alleged violations of the University parking regulations. Such procedures (and subsequent changes thereto) shall be submitted to the chairperson of the Judicial Board and shall become effective thirty days following such submission unless previously returned by the chairperson of the Judicial Board for corrections or modifications. Procedures of the Court of Parking Appeals shall insure prompt and fair handling of appeals but shall avoid any unnecessary formalism. The Chief Justice shall be responsible for promptly placing the procedures in the KU Policy Library.

6.9.2 Initiation of Proceedings. Any charged party who is unwilling to pay the penalty fees of a citation issued for an alleged violation of University parking regulations may contest the citation to the Court of Parking Appeals.

6.9.2.1 The charged party shall, within 10 business days of issuance of the citation, submit a signed statement to the Parking & Transit Department giving the reasons for contesting the allegations and specifying the nature of the supporting evidence the charged party is prepared to produce to support.   The statement must include the charged party’s current address and telephone number.

6.9.2.2 The Parking & Transit Department shall forward the citation and the charged party’s statement to the Court of Parking Appeals within 10 business days. Upon receipt thereof, the Court shall process the contest of the citation in accordance with procedures established by the Court of Parking Appeals.

6.9.2.3 A charged party may request that to appear in person (personal appearance) or may have the case decided by the officers of the Court without argument or evidence beyond the citation and the charged party’s statement (ex parte).

a. Individuals requesting a personal appearance before the Court are not guaranteed a personal appearance. Should the Court determine that the written evidence received is sufficient and a personal appearance will not enhance the decision-making process, the case may be handled without a personal appearance before the officers of the Court. Charged parties requesting a personal appearance, when appropriate, shall be assigned a court date by the officers of the Court within 15 business days of the case being in the Court of Parking Appeals’ possession. Charged parties will receive notification of their court date from the Parking & Transit Department.

b. If the Court is not in session, the contest of a citation that requires a personal appearance shall be assigned a court date within twenty (20) days of the beginning of the next court session.

6.9.3 Consolidation of Proceedings. Cases concerning two or more alleged violations of University parking regulations in the name of a single charged party may be consolidated by the Court of Parking Appeals.

6.9.4 Court Proceedings. Court proceedings shall follow the procedures established by the Court of Parking Appeals. In general, proceedings are to be open to the public, but a hearing may be closed to all except the charged party, the charged party's  representative(s), and the representatives of the University if so requested by a party, and if the hearing is closed in accordance with the Kansas Open Public Meeting laws.

6.9.4.1 The Court shall be held at the time and place designated in the notice sent to the charged party. If it is found necessary to change such time or place, the Court shall inform the parties within a reasonable time in advance of the rescheduled hearing.

6.9.4.2 Procurement of Witnesses. Each party to a proceeding shall have the responsibility of procuring the attendance of any witnesses.

6.9.4.3 Evidentiary Matters. Members of the Court of Parking Appeals shall have the authority to make final rulings on questions regarding the admissibility of evidence.

a. The Court may, by majority vote taken before the beginning of the proceedings, limit the amount of evidence to be received on any given point. In general, no witnesses will be permitted on the issue of a party’s character.

b. All evidence shall be presented by the parties or their representatives. No party or representative may address the Court except in the capacity of a witness called by a party, unless the Court grants such person permission to address the Court.

6.9.5 Review of Decisions by Court En Banc

6.9.5.1 Requests for review of decisions of the Court of Parking Appeals, other than parking permit revocations, shall be submitted to the Parking & Transit Department within ten (10) business days of the decision being rendered and shall be acted upon within another forty-five (45) business days of the beginning of the next court session

6.9.5.2 The Court of Parking Appeals shall include in its procedures provisions for the fair and timely consideration of requests for review of decisions rendered. Such review shall be limited to the record of the Court and no new evidence shall be considered.

6.9.5.3 If the officers of the Court grant review, it shall be scheduled to be heard by the Court En Banc within that semester or within ten (10) business days of the beginning of the next court session. The officers of the Court shall grant review if the case meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) the Court misapplied a Court En Banc decision in making its decision, 2) procedural error, 3) compelling policy considerations, 4) decision clearly erroneous in light of evidence, or 5)inadequate representation of counsel.

6.9.6 Parking Permit Revocations

Court of Parking Appeals decisions with respect to parking permit revocations may be appealed to the University Judicial Board.

6.9.7 Recording of Proceedings

Records of the Court shall be taken by audio recording and such records shall remain of file in the office of the Court of Parking Appeals. Access to such records shall be restricted to the parties, their authorized representatives, the members of the Court of Parking Appeals, and the University Judicial Board. All records of hearings shall be kept for one full year.

Article VII. Policy and Procedures Concerning Financial Exigency

The University of Kansas should not take lightly the possibility of being in a condition of Financial Exigency. It should view such a condition as a grave danger to its survival. Financial Exigency can undermine academic freedom; it damages morale, and it encourages non-productive competition among units in the hope of protecting their faculty positions--all of which are detrimental to quality education. With preventive planning, Financial Exigency need never occur at the University of Kansas. The important activities that the University must undertake to protect its strength and vitality are best pursued prior to the occurrence of Financial Exigency. Therefore, steps should be taken toward preventing mandatory faculty reductions and the potential weakening of the University that such reductions would entail. Accordingly, the three basic considerations underlying all of this document are: (1) the maintenance of a strong and vigorous University; (2) awareness of the implications for the entire university community of all procedures as set forth here; (3) due process not only for individual faculty members, but also for the various units which may be affected, as set forth in 7.2.2.

In the document that follows, the terms "University of Kansas" and "the University" refer to the University of Kansas (Lawrence campus); the term "unit" refers to a budgetary unit such as a department or a program; the term "Chancellor" is to be interpreted to mean that although the Chancellor will ordinarily make use of staff and consult with appropriate individuals, the responsibility and authority to act are the Chancellor's.

Section 1. Definition

7.1.1 The University of Kansas is one of the quality institutions of higher learning in the nation. Only as a last resort after all possible alternatives calculated to preserve the survival of the University as a quality institution of higher learning have been in good faith examined, and utilized or rejected, should the University consider the release of any tenured member of the faculty on the basis of Financial Exigency. At this university, Financial Exigency would be a condition descriptive only of the University as a whole, a unique and compelling financial crisis that would jeopardize the ability of the University to maintain this position unless faculty positions are reduced by the release of one or more tenured faculty members other than "for cause," as defined Part II. B.4 of the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff

7.1.2 The need for such reductions means that, considering its total resources, the University has demonstrated that it has no other reasonable alternative, including appropriate reductions in administrators and administrative support staff, and that such reductions will substantially alleviate its fiscal situation and give it the best opportunity to regain its status.

7.1.3 Where retention of untenured faculty or staff in some areas will demonstrably enhance the viability of the University, such retention is not inconsistent with the reduction of tenured positions elsewhere to the same end. However, unlike financial stress or budgetary constraint, Financial Exigency is of such a magnitude that it precludes faculty or staff expansion in any area through new positions filled by appointments from outside the University, except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion in the academic program of the University as a whole would otherwise result. The Chancellor will consult with the University Senate about these extraordinary circumstances and any resulting serious distortion in the academic program before taking such actions.

7.1.4 Financial Exigency is a temporary condition and must be continually reevaluated.

Section 2. Declaration of Financial Exigency

7.2.1 University-Wide Declaration

7.2.1.1 The Chancellor determines that a state of financial exigency is imminent. The decision to declare a state of financial exigency should be insofar as is possible arrived at by the Chancellor in consultation with the faculty and students of the University. The Chancellor shall therefore be in consultation with the appropriate University governance bodies during all stages leading up to this decision.

7.2.1.2 In consultation with administrators and planning and technical staff, the Chancellor shall prepare documentation in support of the necessity for declaration of Financial Exigency consistent with the definition above. (Section 1.)

7.2.1.3 The Chancellor shall present a written summary of the documentation and decision, including a presentation of the Chancellor's efforts to avert Financial Exigency, to the University Senate Committee on Planning and Resources and to the University Senate Executive Committee prior to a special joint meeting of those two committees at which the Chancellor shall appear to document the necessity for the proposed declaration. If it appears that faculty members must be released with less than one full year notice, the Chancellor shall present to those committees evidence that such notice is impossible.

7.2.1.4 After consultation with the University Senate Committee on Planning and Resources, the University Senate Executive Committee shall, within 30 days of the meeting described in 7.2.1.3, submit a written response to the Chancellor's proposal.

7.2.1.5 Having received the response and having decided to declare University-wide Financial Exigency, the Chancellor shall do so to the University community. The Chancellor shall document the reasons for the declaration of Financial Exigency and shall include respond to any significant objections raised by SenEx. The SenEx response to the declaration of Financial Exigency shall be made public at the same time.

7.2.2 Unit Designation and Unit Due Process

7.2.2.1 Following this declaration, the Chancellor, utilizing the most appropriate advice available, including the University Senate Committee on Planning and Resources, shall designate one or more units within which tenured faculty members are to be released. In each unit so designated, the Chancellor shall indicate the total funds associated therewith. Supporting documentation shall include appropriate financial information, program evaluation, and evidence demonstrating that the proposed reduction, when contrasted with other possible solutions, will least seriously damage the University. The documentation shall indicate why the reductions have to come from the College or particular school(s) and, within the College or any school, from the particular unit(s).

7.2.2.2 The designation and documentation specified in Section 7.2.2.1 shall be made available to all members of the University Senate.

7.2.2.3 No later than seven days after the Chancellor's action under 7.2.2.2 the president of the University Senate shall give notice to the members of the University Senate and to any unit(s) designated by the Chancellor under 7.2.2.2 that the University Senate acting as a hearing body, will convene at a specified date and time, to be no sooner than seven nor later than twenty-one days from the date of the notice, at which time any member of the faculty or staff of the designated unit, or of any unit which claims to be significantly affected by the proposed action, or any student primarily identified with the designated unit, may submit written or oral evidence or testimony.

7.2.2.4 The University Senate, after hearing all appropriate evidence and no later than seven days after the hearing of evidence has been concluded, shall vote whether or not it concurs with the Chancellor's designation of units and extent of proposed reductions in tenured faculty, and shall report to the Chancellor and make public a written summary of its deliberations and a record of its vote on each issue. The Senate may not recommend a reduction in a unit not previously designated by the Chancellor.

7.2.2.5 As expeditiously as possible, and, if possible within seven (7) days, the Chancellor shall respond in writing to the recommendations of the University Senate, documenting reasons for agreeing or disagreeing and for the actions to be taken.

7.2.2.6 A designated unit may propose a plan for fractional appointments as an alternative to the release of any tenured faculty member, but such a plan will not be recommended to the Chancellor if any faculty member whose position is regularly budgeted as a line item in that unit and whose terms of appointment would be affected by the plan, does not agree to it.

7.2.2.7 If a plan for fractional appointments has been approved by all affected faculty members in a unit, the Chancellor shall normally accept it in lieu of releasing tenured faculty members. Otherwise, the Chancellor, utilizing the most appropriate advice available, shall designate the individual faculty members to be released, as specified in Section 7.2.3.

7.2.3 Individual Designation and Due Process

7.2.3.1 After consultation with faculty, students and administrators of the designated unit the Chancellor shall designate which individual tenured faculty members are to be released. Such consultation shall in all cases include consultation with individual faculty members before they are designated for release. The principal criterion shall be the ability of the unit to carry out its teaching, research and service mission most effectively. Faculty members to be released shall be given every opportunity to relocate internally, and all units throughout the University shall make every effort to assist released faculty to be relocated internally. If the faculty member(s) to be released cannot be relocated within the University, the Chancellor shall communicate in writing the decision and the reasons for it to such designated individual(s) at least one full year before the effective date of release. If it is not possible to give one full year notice before the effective date of release, such notice shall be given as early as possible. (The University Senate, in accord with the existing University policy and the national AAUP policy, considers a year's notice to be the minimum acceptable period.)

7.2.3.2 In addition, due process must be scrupulously followed either under or in anticipation of Financial Exigency. All of the rights and privileges of a faculty member to seek remedy for an alleged infringement of academic freedom or violation of established University tenure policies and procedures that now provide the faculty member access to the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board shall also apply to such allegations regarding action taken by the University under or in anticipation of conditions of Financial Exigency. A faculty member, who has received notice of release under 7.2.3.1, above, may appeal the Chancellor's decision to the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board. Appeal must be in writing, be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of notification, and may be based on any of the following grounds:

a. The Chancellor had no reasonable basis in fact for selecting the appellant for release;

b. The selection of appellant failed to follow procedures here prescribed; or

c. The selection of appellant was based on age or unconstitutionally impermissible reasons.

The Chancellor shall bear the burden of proof in appeals based on the first and second grounds. The faculty member shall bear the burden of proof in appeals based on the third ground. The faculty member shall have access to all relevant information in the possession of the administration to aid in preparing the faculty members appeal based on any of the three grounds.

7.2.3.3 If an appeal is received from a faculty member which meets the procedures set forth in 7.2.3.2, above, the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board shall afford the appellant a hearing within thirty (30) days of notice of appeal. Testimony and other evidence shall be taken in accordance with usual procedures of the Committee as set forth at the time in the appropriate University governance documents.

7.2.3.4 After receiving testimony and other evidence, the Committee shall make its determination of whether the notification of release received by the appellant was in violation of the standards set forth in 7.2.3.2, above. The Committee shall then issue a written opinion delineating its decision, the reasons therefor, and its recommendation for disposition. Copies shall be sent to the appellant and to the Chancellor. It is anticipated that the Committee will issue its opinion within thirty (30) days of the date of hearing, but in no case shall the Committee delay longer than sixty (60) days.

7.2.3.5 Within fourteen (14) days, if possible, the Chancellor shall respond in writing to the recommendations of the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board documenting the reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. It is expected that the University will ordinarily accede to the recommendations of the Committee.

Section 3. Emergence from Financial Exigency

7.3.1 Annual Reappraisal and Report

7.3.1.1 The Chancellor shall, during the period of Financial exigency, report at least annually to SenEx and the University Senate Committee on Planning and Resources, updating the documentation presented at the time the initial declaration was made.

7.3.1.2 The University Senate Committee on Planning and Resources shall advise the University Senate and the Chancellor on reappraisal and termination of Financial Exigency and shall monitor the process of emergence from Financial Exigency, with particular regard to protection of reinstatement rights of individual faculty members.

7.3.1.3 In any year in which the documentation fails to indicate that further reductions in tenured faculty positions are needed for the survival of the University as a quality institution, the Chancellor shall declare that the state of Financial Exigency, as defined above, no longer exists. Effective at the time of such a declaration, no additional release of tenured faculty members may be accomplished except for cause (as defined in Part II. B. 4 of the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff) until or unless a new state of financial exigency is declared following the procedure described in Section 2.

7.3.1.4 The obligation of the University to units and individuals affected by Financial Exigency shall continue until fulfilled as provided below. The Chancellor shall promptly initiate the steps below to reinstate (1) the released and (2) the relocated tenured faculty.

7.3.2 Unit Allocation of New Positions

7.3.2.1 Positions added after a period of Financial Exigency are to be assigned to units on the same bases as are new positions under ordinary circumstances, except as specified below (7.3.2.2).

7.3.2.2 Before any new positions are allocated by the University, units which have released tenured faculty members or have adopted a substitute plan to reduce positions under Financial Exigency shall be given the first opportunity to argue for the assignments of new positions to them. Affected units shall present their arguments to the University Senate Committee on Planning and Resources, which shall forward its recommendations to the University Senate and to the Chancellor.

7.3.3 Reinstatement Rights of Individuals

7.3.3.1 After a period of Financial Exigency, the University must honor the reinstatement rights of faculty members released or relocated under Financial Exigency as follows: except for an individual found to be unqualified for the new position, former faculty members applying for a position in their former unit shall be offered the position, with a reasonable time to accept or decline it; in other cases, once a unit is granted permission to recruit for a new faculty position, and as the position is advertised, the Chancellor shall formally invite all former faculty members of the University released under Financial Exigency to apply for the position.

7.3.3.2 So long as there remain any faculty released or relocated under Financial Exigency, the University shall follow the above procedures each time it allocates a new faculty position.

7.3.3.3 Faculty members released or relocated under Financial Exigency who claim that their reinstatement rights as defined herein have been infringed shall have access to the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board for the purpose of a hearing on such claims, and the jurisdiction of the committee shall be enlarged for that purpose.

7.3.3.4 If the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board supports the claim of an individual, it shall provide to the Chancellor and to the claimant a written statement of its reasons for supporting the appeal and a proposed remedy. It is expected that the University will ordinarily accede to the findings of the Committee.

7.3.3.5 If the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board finds that the reinstatement rights of the claimant have not been infringed, it shall provide the Chancellor and the individual with a written statement of its findings, which shall include an affirmation that the individual claimant has exhausted recourse to due process within the University with regard to the particular claim at issue.

7.3.4 Termination of Obligations Incurred Under Financial Exigency. The obligation of the University to released faculty members shall cease only when all tenured faculty members released under Financial Exigency have been reinstated or have formally indicated that they no longer wish to be reinstated.

         Section 4. Timely Notice

7.4.1 As soon as possible, in the fall of each year all units are to be furnished a documented estimate of anticipated financial support for unclassified positions for the following fiscal year.

7.4.2 The Chancellor shall make every effort to complete the proceedings of Section 2, including due process for units and declaration of Financial Exigency, if any, by March 15 of the year in which notice to a faculty member of non-reappointment is expected to be issued.

7.4.3 Individual faculty members must be notified according to the provisions of 7.2.3.1.

Section 5. Review Procedures

7.5.1 Every five years after the official acceptance of this document by the Chancellor, it shall be reviewed by the University administration and by a committee appointed by the University Senate Executive Committee. Either group may then suggest revisions to the document.

Article VIII. Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Program Discontinuance

Section 0. Preamble

8.0.1 In the life of a university, as knowledge expands and new academic programs flourish, some programs may diminish or become outmoded. In the processes of growth and diminution, academic programs may be discontinued when there is no valid educational reason for their continuance. In the process of discontinuing programs, three basic considerations must prevail: 1) the maintenance of a strong and vigorous University, 2) the fulfillment of the commitments to students in the process of completing discontinued programs, and 3) the fulfillment of established faculty rights and due process to individual faculty and unclassified staff members on probationary or tenured appointments who may be subject to dismissal.

8.0.2 The determination that an academic program shall be discontinued because of bona fide academic and educational reasons shall be made by the Chancellor after careful investigation. To assure that such recommendations are reached by just and equitable means and to protect the rights and interests of programs, faculty, unclassified staff, and students affected by such recommendations, the following procedures will be adhered to by all relevant units of the University.

8.0.3 To fall within the purview of this article, Program Discontinuance shall be based strictly upon educational considerations as determined by the faculty as specified in this article. "Educational considerations" must reflect long range judgments on the academic mission of the program and not cyclical or temporary enrollment variations. Long range judgments shall be based upon such objective criteria as program reviews, accreditation studies, and other instructional data.

Section 1. Definitions and Exclusions

8.1.1 An "Academic program" at the University of Kansas is a "course of study leading to a certificate or degree."

8.1.2 “Active academic program” is a program which has accepted students within the last three years and in which students are currently pursuing a degree.

8.1.3 “Inactive academic program” is a program to which no students have been admitted for three years or more and to which the academic unit has no intent to admit students in the future. No faculty member will be adversely affected by the discontinuance of an inactive academic program. If a faculty member will be adversely affected by program discontinuance, the process for discontinuing an active academic program must be followed.

8.1.4 “Program Discontinuance" is the decision by the Chancellor, upon recommendation by the Provost, that the University shall, for bona fide educational considerations, cease to offer such a program. Bona fide educational considerations are distinct from those of financial exigency.

8.1.5 Programs subject to discontinuance under these procedures are those programs listed in the "Degree and Certificate Program Inventory for Regents Institutions."

8.1.6 Program Discontinuance may take the form of the abolition of the academic unit (The College, School, Department, or Division) in which the certificate or degree is offered, or it may take the form of the abolition of a particular certificate or degree program with no other change in the academic unit.

8.1.7 Exclusion - The term "program" is applied to a wide variety of other academic and administrative activities of the University. These include: areas of emphasis or academic subspecialties within existing certificate or degree programs, interdisciplinary studies programs that do not offer a certificate or degree, and academic support services. Such "programs" are not subject to discontinuance under these procedures unless they are wholly contained within a program that is being discontinued.

8.1.8 If an academic unit offers more than one certificate or degree program, its faculty are not subject to dismissal for reasons of Program Discontinuance unless all degree and certificate programs offered by that unit are discontinued or unless the faculty member is demonstrably unqualified for appointment in the continuing program, subject to appeal under 8.3.4.

Section 2. Recommendations for Discontinuance of Active Academic Programs

8.2.1 Recommendations for Discontinuance of an Active Academic Program may be initiated by 1) the academic unit in which the program is offered, 2) the Dean of the College or the School in which the program is offered, 3) the Dean of Graduate Studies, or 4) the Provost.

8.2.2 The individual or academic unit initiating the Recommendation for Discontinuance of an Active Academic Program shall present such recommendation to the Provost by the end of the third week of the Fall semester. The Recommendation shall be made in writing and shall include 1) an explicit rationale for the recommendation and 2) a description of the projected impact on (a) the academic mission of the University and (b) the students and faculty of the program. Copies of the recommendation, together with the rationale, academic reviews of the program, and an impact statement, shall be provided to the appropriate faculty, Dean(s), and Provost at the time the Recommendation is initiated.

8.2.3 The Provost shall immediately upon receipt of the Recommendation for Discontinuance of an Active Academic Program, refer the Recommendation to the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures.

8.2.4 After the receipt by the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures of the Recommendation under 8.2.3 the Chairperson of the Committee shall give public notice to the University community and to the faculty and students involved in the program concerned that the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures, acting as a hearing body, will convene at a specified date and time, during either the fifth or sixth week of the Fall semester. Public notice should be given at least seven calendar days in advance of the hearing. At this time any member of the faculty or staff of the designated program, or of any unit that claims to be significantly affected by the proposed action, or any student primarily identified with the designated program, may submit evidence or testimony.

8.2.5 The Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures shall submit, in writing, by the end of the tenth week of the semester, to 1) the Faculty of the program, 2) the University Senate, and 3) the Provost, its own recommendation for or against the Recommendation for Discontinuance of an Active Academic Program. Its recommendations shall indicate whether the proposed Discontinuance 1) is in the best academic interests of the University, 2) makes adequate provisions for the present students in the program, and makes adequate provision for the rights of the faculty of the program. The recommendation shall include appropriate supporting evidence and commentary, including adverse comments received.

8.2.5.1 Recognizing that administrators, faculty and students may disagree on what constitutes the "best academic interests" of the University, the Academic Policies and Procedures Committee shall take into consideration the mission statement of the institution and the long and short-term interests of faculty and students and their respective units. Interdisciplinary programs shall be given the same consideration as departmental programs.

8.2.5.2 The "adequate provision" clause in 8.2.5 may include but shall not be limited to relocation of faculty of the program in another academic unit of the University.

8.2.5.3 The University Senate shall submit to the Provost its recommendation for or against the proposed Discontinuance by the end of the Fall semester final exam period. This recommendation shall be submitted in writing by the president of the University Senate and shall include an explicit statement of rationale.

8.2.6 The Provost shall report the Provosot's recommendation for or against Discontinuance to the Chancellor and shall concurrently inform the appropriate faculty, Dean(s) and governance bodies. Such recommendation shall be submitted in writing and shall include an explicit statement or rationale, including responses to the recommendation(s) of the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures and the University Senate, as provided in 8.2.5 and 8.2.6.

8.2.7 The Chancellor shall evaluate the recommendations, make a final decision for or against Program Discontinuance and communicate that decision to governance bodies, as well as the the appropriate faculty and Dean(s), where appropriate the Chancellor shall specify the subsequent date of discontinuance and at the Chancellor's discretion, may  lengthen the phase-out period.

Section 3. Recommendations for Discontinuance of Inactive Academic Programs

8.3.1 Recommendations for Discontinuance of an Inactive Academic Program may be initiated by 1) the academic unit in which the program is offered, 2) the Dean of the College or the School in which the program is offered, 3) the Dean of Graduate Studies, or 4) the Provost.

8.3.2 The individual or academic unit initiating the Recommendation for Discontinuance of an Inactive Academic Program shall present such recommendation to the Provost. A Recommendation for Discontinuance of an Inactive Academic Program may be submitted at any time during the academic year. The Recommendation of Discontinuance shall be made in writing and shall conform with requirements 1 through 4 in 8.2.2 above.

8.3.3 The Provost shall immediately upon receipt of the Recommendation for Discontinuance of an Inactive Academic Program, refer the Recommendation to the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures.

8.3.4 Upon receipt of a Recommendation for Discontinuance under 8.3.3, the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures shall review the recommendation and submit to the University Senate its written recommendation for or against the Recommendation for Program Discontinuance.

8.3.5 The President of the University Senate shall submit to the Provost the Senate’s written recommendation for or against the proposed Discontinuance of an Inactive Academic Program. If the University Senate does not concur with the recommendation of the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures, the Senate recommendation shall include an explicit statement of rationale. If the University Senate does not concur with a recommendation for Discontinuance of an Inactive Academic Program, it may require that the Recommendation be considered through the process for Discontinuance of an Active Academic Program described in 8.2 above.

8.3.6 The Provost shall provide a written recommendation for or against Discontinuance to the Chancellor and shall concurrently inform the appropriate faculty, Dean(s) and governance bodies. If the Provost’s recommendation differs from the recommendation(s) of the Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures and/or the University Senate, as provided in 8.3.4 and 8.3.5, the Provost shall provide an explicit statement or rationale for the recommendation.

8.3.7 The Chancellor shall evaluate the recommendations and communicate the Chancellor's final decision for or against Program Discontinuance to the appropriate faculty, Dean(s), and governance bodies and shall, where appropriate, specify the subsequent date of discontinuance.

Section 4. Notice to the Faculty of Nonreappointment Due to Academic Program Discontinuance

8.4.1 Dismissal of an appointment with continuous tenure, or of a probationary or specified appointment before the end of a specified term, may occur as a result of Program Discontinuance.

8.4.2 The Provost, upon the recommendation of the appropriate Dean, shall recommend to the Chancellor which faculty members within the discontinued program are to be dismissed. Before making a recommendation to the Chancellor, however, the Provost shall permit a faculty member recommended for dismissal by the Dean to submit to the Provost in writing reasons and evidence why the recommendation of the Dean was biased or inappropriate. Before notice of the intent to dismiss is given, every reasonable effort shall be made to place the faculty member in another suitable position within the University. If placement in another position would be facilitated by a reasonable period of retraining, financial and other support for such training will be preferred.

8.4.3 The Chancellor shall give written notice of the intent to dismiss the faculty member. Notice shall include: a) a statement of the basis for the initial decision to dismiss; b) a description of the manner in which the initial decision to dismiss was arrived at; c) a disclosure of the data upon which the Chancellor relied; and d) a statement of the faculty member's right to respond to the dismissal. Such notice shall be given 1) not later than March 1, of the first academic year of service; or if the appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its completion; 2) not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or if an initial two-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination; 3) at least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years in the institution. Faculty on continuous tenured appointments who are scheduled for dismissal for reasons of Program Discontinuance will be retained for the years in which their programs are being phased out in accordance with 8.5.1 and will receive their full salaries. During the time in which students in a discontinued program are permitted by 8.5.1 to complete their degrees, tenured faculty members shall be continued in their previous duties, or shall, by mutual consent, be reassigned to other suitable positions within the University in accordance with 8.4.2.

8.4.4 Due process must be scrupulously followed during Program Discontinuance. All of the rights and privileges of the faculty member to seek remedy for an alleged infringement of academic freedom or violation of established University tenure policies and procedures that now provide faculty access to the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board shall also apply to such allegations regarding actions taken by the University under Program Discontinuance. A faculty member may appeal the Chancellor's decision to dismiss to the Faculty Rights Board. Such appeal shall be made in writing, and shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of notification. The appeal may be based on 8.1.6 or on the grounds that 1) the dismissal was based on a statutory or constitutionally impermissible reason, or 2) the procedure surrounding the dismissal was improper.

Improper procedure includes (but is not limited to):

a. Violation of the procedures outlined in Section 2 for arriving at the recommendation of discontinuance of the program in question. Such appeal, however, shall not address the substance of the recommendation.

b. Violation of the procedures outlined in Section 3 for arriving at the recommendation of non-reappointment of the individual.

c. Use of incomplete or erroneous data or information in the decision-making process by the Chancellor that led to the dismissal; that is, that the Chancellor had no basis in fact for selecting the appellant for dismissal.

d. Lack of a reasonable effort to place the faculty member in another suitable position in the University before the notice of intent to dismiss.

Where the basis of the appeal is statutory or constitutional impermissibility, the burden of proof is on the faculty member; where the basis of appeal is improper procedure, the burden of proof is on the Chancellor. The faculty member shall have access to all relevant information in the possession of the administration to aid in preparing the case based on any of the grounds listed above.

8.4.5 The Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board shall conduct an informal hearing within thirty (30) days of notice of the appeal. Testimony and other evidence shall be taken in accordance with usual procedures of the committee as set forth at the time in the appropriate (30) days of the hearing, the Committee shall issue a written opinion stating its decision, the reasons there for, and its recommendation for disposition. Copies of the opinion shall be sent to the faculty member and the Chancellor.

8.4.6 Normally, the Committee's decision shall be final and binding, and the case shall be deemed closed. If, however, the Chancellor or the faculty member affected disagrees with that decision, they shall respond in writing to the recommendations of the Faculty Rights Board, documenting the reasons for disagreement and requesting reconsideration and final disposition within fifteen (15) days. It is understood that the final administrative authority resides with the Chancellor, who is the appointed representative of the Board of Regents.

8.4.7 If the program that has been discontinued should be reinstituted within five (5) years from the date of declaration as specified in 8.2.8, faculty positions in that program shall not be filled unless the dismissed faculty member shall be offered reappointment at the same rank and tenure status as held previously, unless the faculty member is demonstrably unqualified for appointment in the reinstituted program. A reasonable time in which to accept or decline the offer must be afforded the faculty member. Faculty members released or relocated under such program discontinuance who claim that their reinstatement rights have been infringed shall have access to the Faculty Senate Faculty Rights Board for the purpose of a hearing on such claims, and the jurisdiction of the committee shall be enlarged for that purpose. If, after the five-year period, a position in the area of previous service of a dismissed faculty member is advertised, the faculty member shall, if possible, be notified.

Section 5. Impact on Students

8.5.1 In accordance with 8.2.8, following the Chancellor’s decision to discontinue a program under the process described herein, the program will be phased out. Baccalaureate and masters programs will be phased out over four academic years. Doctoral programs will be phased out over six academic years. The four or six academic year phase-out (respectively) will be followed unless the Chancellor lengthens the phase-out as outlined in 8.2.8. The phase-out begins at the start of the academic year immediately following the Chancellor’s decision. Students currently enrolled in the program shall be publicly so notified and shall be allowed to finish their course of studies within the four or six academic year phase-out (respectively).

A good-faith effort will be made by the school in which the program to be discontinued is housed to contact former students who were enrolled in the program at any time during the three academic years prior to the Chancellor’s decision to discontinue the program. A former student will be readmitted to a program that is being phased out only if the student is eligible for readmission and has sufficient credits as determined by the academic program to allow the student complete the program within the four or six academic year phase-out (respectively).

For program discontinuance, a former student is a student who declared a major, who has not yet graduated, and who is not enrolled at the time the decision is made to discontinue the academic program. The school in which the program is housed will also contact any graduate students who are on approved leaves of absence at the time the decision is made to discontinue a graduate academic program.

No degree may be awarded from a discontinued program after the phase-out has ended. If it is not possible for students to complete their degree programs within this four or six academic year phase-out (respectively), the University shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate such students. Such efforts should include, but not be limited to the following:

8.5.1.1 Helping the student gain admission into a related and active academic program at KU. These students will be held to the requirements for their new degree program and the University in place at the time of their admission to the related and active academic program;

8.5.1.2 Working with the student to develop a tailored program, such as the Bachelor of General Studies or M.A., M.S. or Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies;

8.5.1.3 Making provisions in the case of graduate students, for supervision of dissertations and administration of graduate examinations by faculty at other institutions; and

8.5.1.4 Honoring existing multiyear fellowships.

8.5.2 Once Program Discontinuance has been declared, no new students shall be admitted to the program.

Article IX. Guidelines for Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct

           Section 9.0. Statement of Policy

9.0.1 Objectivity, integrity, and truthfulness are hallmarks of scholarly research and are essential for ensuring creative progress and public trust.  The University of Kansas is committed to fostering an environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, research training, and related activities, and to dealing effectively with alleged instances of misconduct in scholarly research.  This Policy implements that commitment and is intended to fulfill the University’s responsibilities as a recipient of Federal Government research funds.

9.0.2 Each person engaged in scholarly research under the auspices of the University is expected to adhere to the highest professional standards of intellectual honesty and integrity in proposing, performing, and reviewing research, in reporting research results, and in the public exhibition, display, or performance of creative work.

9.0.3 The purpose of this Policy and the accompanying guidance and procedures is to ensure the thorough, impartial, and timely handling of alleged instances of misconduct in scholarly research, while protecting the rights and reputations of individuals – those who report alleged misconduct and those against whom an allegation of misconduct is made.

Section 1. General Provisions

9.1.1 Scope and Jurisdiction

This Policy applies to all forms of scholarly research conducted by a University member under the auspices of the University of Kansas, regardless of the source of financial support.  When an allegation of research misconduct relates to activities funded by a Federal agency, this Policy is intended to fulfill the University’s requirements under the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct promulgated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Federal Register 65: 26260, December 6, 2000) and rules issued subsequently by the sponsoring agency (e.g., National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities). Pursuant to Federal Policy, a finding or settlement by a Federal agency in a research misconduct case shall not affect the University’s findings, administrative actions, or sanctions based on application of this Policy.

9.1.2 Research Misconduct

9.1.2.1 Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

     a. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.​

     b. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

     c. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

     d. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

9.1.2.2 The following do not fall within the definition of research misconduct: (a) misuse of University funds, including funds from any external research sponsor; (b) disputes about collaborations, authorship, or inventorship; (c) violations of institutional procedures or federal regulations for the protection of human or animal research subjects; or (d) violations of state or federal occupational health and safety laws or regulations.

9.1.2.3 Research misconduct does not include academic misconduct in the preparation, use, or submission of work or materials in courses offered for academic credit, which is governed by the procedures of University Senate Rules and Regulations (USRR) Article II, Section 6.  In the event that misconduct relates to work that has both research and course-related elements, this Policy shall be used.

9.1.3 Finding of Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that:

     a. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and 

     b. The misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly; and 

     c. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence

9.1.4 Evidentiary Standards

     a. Standard of proof. A fining of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. 

     b. Burden of proof.

     1. The University has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct.

     2. If the respondent elects to raise an affirmative defense, then the respondent has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any and all affirmative defenses raised.  In determining whether the University has carried the burden of proof imposed by this Policy, the Deciding Official shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.

     3. The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors that are relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions or sanction by the University following a research misconduct proceeding. 

9.1.5 Responsibility to Report Misconduct

9.1.5.1 University members are obligated to report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer.

9.1.5.2 At any time, a University member may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the Research Integrity Officer and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

9.1.5.3 If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, the individual may meet with or contact the Research Integrity Officer to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally and confidentially, which may include discussing it hypothetically.  If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will refer the individual or allegation to the appropriate University official.

9.1.6 Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings

University members are expected to cooperate with the Research Integrity Officer and other University officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. 

Nothing herein will be interpreted in such a way to infringe on a University member’s right to invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution with regard to self-incrimination.

9.1.7 Statute of Limitation

Because of the difficulty of investigating old claims, allegations based on conduct that occurred more than six years prior to the date the allegation is made will not be pursued, unless circumstances indicate that the alleged misconduct could not have reasonably been discovered earlier. Exceptions to the six-year limitation include:

     a. Subsequent use exception.  The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication or other use for the potential benefit of the respondent of the research record that is alleged to have been falsified, fabricated or plagiarized.

     b. Public health or safety exception.  If the funding agency, or the University in consultation with the funding agency, determines that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public. 

9.1.8 Prompt Resolution

9.1.8.1 All proceedings should be conducted expeditiously and adhere to the timelines set out in this Policy.  However, these timelines are not absolute.  The Research Integrity Officer may for good cause extend a timeline or make such other changes to these procedures to ensure that the proceeding can be conducted adequately and completely, provided that the change does not infringe upon a respondent’s rights or impair the ability to defend.  Extending the timeline for a research misconduct investigation where federal funding is involved requires written approval by the cognizant federal agency.

9.1.8.2 Failure to complete an inquiry, investigation, or other process within these time frames shall not constitute ground for dismissal of an allegation of research misconduct.  Any undue delay may be considered by the Deciding Official when reviewing findings and recommendations.

9.1.9 Ensuring a Fair Research Misconduct Proceeding

The Research Integrity Officer shall take all reasonable efforts to ensure an impartial and unbiased research misconduct proceeding to the maximum extent practical.  Individuals who serve on either inquiry or investigation committees shall have appropriate scientific or scholarly expertise and shall not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with a respondent, complainant, or witness in a research misconduct proceeding.

9.1.10 Revisiting an Allegation

Where an inquiry or investigation results in a finding that no research misconduct has occurred, the University will not initiate a new inquiry or investigation into an allegation of research misconduct where the allegation is made against the same person and is based on material facts, which were reviewed and found not to constitute research misconduct during the prior research misconduct proceeding, unless new material evidence is presented by a different complainant, or unless the respondent requests another proceeding.

9.1.11 Triage and Precedence

9.1.11.1 The Research Integrity Officer, with assistance of the Office of the General Counsel and others as required, will determine if an allegation impacts multiple regulatory areas (e.g., human or animal research subjects, financial conflict of interest, misuse of funds, etc.).  Review of the allegation of research misconduct shall precede all other University proceedings that relate to or arise out of alleged misconduct unless:

     a. The safety of research subjects is at risk;

     b. Public health issues are at stake; or

     c. A criminal investigation is being conducted

9.1.11.2 Research misconduct involving one or more collaborating sites will be handled through coordination of the Research Integrity Officers at the involved institutions.

9.1.12 Confidentiality

The Research Integrity Officer shall:

     a. Limit disclosure of the identity of complainants and respondents to those who have a need to know consistent with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding and as allowed by law; and

     b. Except as otherwise prescribed by law, limit the disclosure of any records or evidence from which human research subjects might be identified to those who have a need to know in order to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

     c. Use written confidentiality agreements to ensure that those receiving information do not make any further disclosure of such information. Specific language in this confidential agreement shall be developed and maintained in collaboration with the Research Integrity Officer, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

     d. Disclose the identity of respondents and complainants to federal agencies with regulatory oversight of research misconduct proceedings involving federally-funded research.

9.1.13 Safeguards for Complainants, Witness, and Committee Members

9.1.13.1 No member of the University community shall retaliate in any manner against complainants, witnesses, or committee members.  University members should immediately report alleged or apparent retaliation to the Research Integrity Official, who shall review the allegation of retaliation, and if warranted, make all reasonable and practical efforts to redress any retaliation that has already occurred and to prevent any further retaliation.

9.1.13.2 The Research Integrity Officer and other University officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness or committee member, and to counter potential or actual retaliation against them.

9.1.14 Safeguards for Respondents

Throughout a research misconduct proceeding, the Research Integrity Officer shall ensure that respondents receive a copy of this Policy and the accompanying guidance and procedures, and of all the notices and opportunities provided for in this Policy.

As requested and as appropriate, the Research Integrity Officer and other University officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.

9.1.15 Separation of a Respondent from the University

9.1.15.1 The termination of the respondent’s employment or other relationship with the University, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the proceedings.

9.1.15.2 If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the research misconduct proceeding will continue to conclusion with whatever evidence is available. If the respondent elects to invoke the privilege of remaining silent and refuses to participate in the research misconduct proceeding after resignation, the inquiry or investigation committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegation, noting in its report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the review of the evidence.

9.1.16 Destruction or Absence of Research Records

The destruction, absence of, or respondent’s failure to provide research records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner, and that the respondent’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

9.1.17 Conflict of Interest

If a conflict of interest is alleged by a party at any point in the assessment, inquiry, or investigation phase of the case, the Research Integrity Officer will review the allegation and determine whether a conflict exists. In the event the Research Integrity Officer is alleged to have a conflict of interest, the Chair of the Conflict of Interest Committee shall review the allegation and determine whether a conflict exists. A conflict of interest exists if there is a divergence between an individual's private, personal relationships or interests and the individual’s professional obligations to the university such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are determined by considerations of personal benefit, gain or advantage. The decision of the Research Integrity Officer, or as described above the Chair of the Conflict of Interest Committee, regarding the existence of a conflict shall be final.

9.1.18 Custody and Retention of Research Misconduct Proceeding Records

The Research Integrity Officer shall be responsible for assuring that all records and documents relevant to research misconduct proceedings are retained in a secure manner for seven (7) years after completion of the University’s proceedings, or of any research misconduct proceeding conducted by a federal cognizant agency, whichever is later.

9.1.19 Right of Consultation

At any stage of a research misconduct proceeding, the respondent may consult with appropriate student, faculty, or professional advisory groups. The respondent may consult with private legal counsel, and may be accompanied and advised by counsel or another advisor at any interview or meeting under this Policy.  The advisor may not present the case, give evidence, respond on behalf of the respondent, or otherwise participate in the internal research misconduct proceeding. If external federal oversight reviews or hearings occur, the respondent maintains the right to be represented by legal counsel.

9.1.20 Proceedings at Federal Request

If a federal agency requests that the University undertake an inquiry, investigation, or other federally-mandated proceeding, then the Research Integrity Officer shall initiate such proceeding.

9.1.21 Interim Administrative Actions and Notification of Federal Agency

9.1.21.1 Throughout the research misconduct proceeding, the Research Integrity Officer will review the situation to determine if there is an immediate threat of harm to public health or safety, federal funds or equipment, or the integrity of federally-supported research.  In the event of such a threat, the Research Integrity Officer will, in consultation with other University officials and the federal agency, take appropriate interim action to protect against any such threat.  Interim action might include, but not be limited to, additional monitoring of research activities and the handling of federal funds and equipment, reassignment of personnel, or the responsibility for the handling of federal funds and equipment, additional review of research data and results, or delaying publication of research results. 

9.1.21.2 The Research Integrity Officer shall, at any time during a research misconduct proceeding, notify the cognizant Federal agency if there is reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

     a. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal research subjects;

     b. Federal resources or interests are threatened;

     c. Research activities should be suspended;

     d. There is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;

     e. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;

     f. The research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely and federal action may be necessary to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or

     g. The research community or public should be informed.

          Section 2. Definitions

9.2.1 Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication.  The disclosure may be by written or oral statement or other communication to the Research Integrity Officer or a Federal agency in the case of federally-funded research.

9.2.2 Allegation assessment means a preliminary administrative review by the Research Integrity Officer to determine whether an allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and whether it is sufficiently credible and specific to warrant an inquiry.

9.2.3 Complainant means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. After making an allegation, a complainant shall have no further role in any research misconduct proceeding that may follow, except to cooperate as a witness when appropriate.

9.2.4 Days means calendar days.

9.2.5 Deciding Official means the University official who receives the final report of a research misconduct investigation and determines the appropriate institutional response including imposition of institutional sanctions. The Deciding Official shall have no direct involvement in any research misconduct proceeding other than to be kept informed of the existence of and progress of those proceedings.  The Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor serves as the Deciding Official for the Lawrence and Edwards campuses. In the event the Provost has a conflict of interest in a particular case, the Chancellor shall appoint another individual to act as the Deciding Official.

9.2.6 Evidence means any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.

9.2.7 Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the complainant’s or witness’s position could have based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if it is made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. Good faith as applied to a committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the duties assigned impartially for the purpose of helping the University meets its responsibilities for responding to an allegation of research misconduct. A committee member does not act in good faith if the committee member’s acts or omissions on the committee are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

9.2.8 Inquiry means preliminary gathering of information and initial fact-finding to determine whether or not an allegation warrants an investigation.

9.2.9 Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to a decision not to make a finding of research misconduct or to a recommendation for a finding of research misconduct which may include a recommendation for other appropriate actions, including administrative actions and institutional sanctions.

9.2.10 Notice means a written communication served in person, sent by mail or its equivalent, to the last known street address, facsimile number, or email address of the addressee.

9.2.11 Preponderance of the evidence means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

9.2.12 Research means a diligent and systematic process of inquiry in order to discover, interpret or revise facts, events, behaviors, or theories, or to make practical applications of the same. For the purpose of this regulation, “research” shall be broadly construed to include all research and scholarly activities at the University, ranging from “basic, applied and demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics” to scholarship in the humanities, social sciences and artistic expression.

9.2.13 Research Integrity Officer mean the institutional official who has primary responsibility for implementing this Policy, for ensuring compliance with federal regulations and other sponsor requirements, as appropriate, and for directing a case from receipt of an allegation through the final disposition of the research misconduct proceedings.  The Vice Chancellor for Research serves as the Research Integrity Officer for the Lawrence and Edwards campuses, except that an Associate Vice Chancellor for Research will serve instead, if the Vice Chancellor has a conflict of interest in a particular case.  The roles and responsibilities of the Research Integrity Officer are more fully described in the accompanying guidance document: “Roles and Responsibilities of the Research Integrity Officer.”

9.2.14 Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under this Policy, including but not limited to, allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, federal agency oversight reviews, hearings, and administrative appeals.

9.2.15 Research record means any type of records or materials that document the proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting of research. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant, contract, or other sponsored project applications, whether funded or unfunded; narrative progress and final reports to sponsors; abstracts, theses and dissertations, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles; records and correspondence relating to financial records, purchasing records, scope of work, budgets and service records; and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; video records; photographs; X-ray films; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; human and animal research protocols; animal facility records; animal medical records; human subject consent forms; human medical records; and patient research files.

9.2.16 Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

9.2.17 University member means a person who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with the University.  University members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, clinical technicians, postdoctoral and other trainees, students, volunteers, affiliates, agents, and contractors, subcontractors, and subawardees and their employees. 

Section 3. Guidance and Procedures for Allegations, Assessment and Inquiry

9.3.0 Need for Uniform Procedures

9.3.0.1 Dealing with an instance of alleged research misconduct is one of the most serious, difficult, and stressful situations encountered in the scholarly community.  For the complainant, who feels compelled to call attention to observed or suspected research misconduct by a trainee, mentor, or close colleague, it is a time of high anxiety and uncertainty.  For the respondent, being accused of research misconduct is one of the most stressful events a scholar can face.  Often overlooked is the emotional impact of research misconduct proceedings on others involved in the case – those who act as witnesses and those who serve on inquiry or investigation committees.  Indeed, the stakes are high for everyone.  The mishandling of an allegation of research misconduct, particularly early in the process, can have devastating consequences on the careers and reputations of those involved and on the ultimate outcome of the case.

9.3.0.2 Consequently, the procedures outlined here are designed to ensure a timely, thorough, competent, objective, and fair handling of research misconduct allegations by the University.  They emphasize early involvement and centralized responsibility of the Research Integrity Officer for conducting and monitoring the proceedings and for preserving the maximum level of confidentiality allowed by law.

9.3.0.3 Responding to an allegation of research misconduct may consist of several phases, including: (1) receipt and assessment of an allegation; (2) an inquiry; (3) an investigation; (4) required reporting to sponsoring agencies, where applicable; and (5) adjudication.  The Federal Policy on Research Misconduct requires that the phases be separated organizationally.  The Research Integrity Officer has lead responsibility for the University’s response from receipt of the allegation through completion of an investigation and reporting.  The Deciding Official receives the final investigation report and is responsible for determining and implementing any University administrative actions or sanctions.

9.3.1 Making an Allegation of Research Misconduct

An allegation of research misconduct may be filed by anyone, regardless of whether the person making the allegation is or is not a University member.  The disclosure may be made by written or oral statement, or any other means of communication.  Any number of University officials, such as a research supervisor, department chair, dean or center director may receive an allegation.  To ensure consistency of handling allegations of research misconduct, anyone who receives an allegation should immediately inform the Research Integrity Officer, who will assume responsibility for assessment of the allegation.  An allegation involving federal funding may be filed directly with the Federal agency sponsoring the research, which transmits it to the Research Integrity Officer.

9.3.2 Allegation Assessment

9.3.2.1 Upon receiving a good faith allegation of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will immediately commence an assessment of the allegation to determine (a) whether it falls under the definition of research misconduct; and (b) whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.  An inquiry must be conducted if both criteria are met.  The Research Integrity Officer will note whether the research in question was supported in whole or in part by federal funds.

9.3.2.2 In conducting the assessment, the Research Integrity Officer need not interview individuals nor gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the allegation, except as deemed necessary to reasonably determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific.  The Research Integrity Officer may consult with Office of General Counsel and others as necessary.

9.3.2.3 The allegation assessment period should be brief, and should be completed within fourteen (14) days after the Research Integrity Officer receives the allegation, if practical.

9.3.2.4 The Research Integrity Officer will prepare an assessment report for the record that describes the specific allegation(s), the date received, the source, a description of evidence gathered and reviewed, the reasons for the decision whether or not an inquiry is warranted, and, in the case where an inquiry is warranted, the substantive issues of the case for consideration by the inquiry panel.

9.3.3 Notifications

9.3.3.1 As soon as practical after the allegation assessment has been completed, but before beginning an inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer must make a good faith effort to notify the respondent in writing of the allegation and whether or not an inquiry is warranted.  If an inquiry is not warranted, the Research Integrity Officer shall close the case and take steps to remove any reference to the allegation from the respondent’s record.  If an inquiry is warranted, the respondent will be provided with details of the allegation, a copy of this Policy, and the relevant Federal policy in the case of federally-funded research.

9.3.3.2 The Research Integrity Officer will also notify the complainant, if known, and the Deciding Official of the decision whether or not an inquiry is warranted.

9.3.4 Sequestration of Research Records

As soon as possible, but no later than when the respondent is notified of the allegation, the Research Integrity Officer shall take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding.  The records and evidence shall be inventories and sequestered in a secure manner.  Where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies have evidentiary value substantially equivalent to that of the instruments themselves.

9.3.5 Appointment of the Inquiry Committee

The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other University officials as necessary, will appoint an Inquiry Committee, consisting of two or more persons with appropriate background and expertise related to the area of scholarship and the allegation, who do not have conflicts of interest with the known principals in the case, to conduct the inquiry.  Inquiry Committee members will certify that they do not have a conflict of interest and will sign a confidentiality agreement

9.3.6 Initial Meeting of the Inquiry Committee

The primary purpose of the initial meeting of the inquiry meeting is to inform the committee members of their rights and responsibilities and to advise them of proper procedure. The Research Integrity Officer will hold an initial meeting of the Inquiry Committee during which the committee will be provided with the following: (a) a copy of this Policy; (b) the allegation and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment; (c) the purpose of the inquiry; (d) the criteria for determining whether or not an investigation is warranted; (e) the responsibility to prepare a written Inquiry Report that meets the requirements of this Policy; (f) the requirement to keep all matters related to the research misconduct proceeding confidential; and (g) the timeline for completion of the inquiry.  A representative of the Office of the General Counsel shall be present solely to advise on proper procedures.

9.3.7 Inquiry Phase

9.3.7.1 The purpose of an inquiry is to decide if an allegation warrants an investigation.  An investigation is warranted if there is (a) a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct; and (b) preliminary information gathering and fact-finding indicates that the allegation may have substance.  As soon as the Inquiry Committee makes that determination, its task is done.  An inquiry does not involve a full review of all evidence related to an allegation, nor shall it attempt to reach a conclusion as to whether research misconduct has been committed.

9.3.7.2 The Inquiry Committee shall request that the respondent provide a written response to the allegation of research misconduct within 14 days, but the committee may grant a reasonable extension of the deadline at its discretion. After receiving and reviewing the respondent’s written response to the allegation, or if the respondent does not respond in writing, the Inquiry Committee shall invite the respondent for a personal interview to discuss the details of the alleged misconduct.  The interview many be conducted in person, by telephone or videoconference.  This interview shall be fact-finding rather than adversarial.  If the respondent declines to be interviewed, the Inquiry Committee shall continue its inquiry with the information available to it.

9.3.7.3 The Inquiry Committee, at its discretion, may interview the complainant and other individuals to obtain information pertinent to the inquiry.  Any such interviews may be conducted in person, by telephone or videoconference, or through solicited responses to written questions, as appropriate.  Any such interviews will be conducted in a manner designed to preserve the confidentiality of the inquiry process, including to the extent possible, the identity of the complainant and respondent.  Witnesses will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement.  Interviews shall be recorded or transcribed.  This interview shall be fact-finding rather than adversarial.  The Inquiry Committee may examine relevant research records and materials it deems central to reaching a decision.

9.3.7.4 The Inquiry Committee shall immediately notify the Research Integrity Officer if, during the course of the inquiry, additional allegations of research misconduct are uncovered, or if additional respondents are identified.  In either case, the Research Integrity Officer shall provide required notifications in writing.

9.3.8 Inquiry Report

The Inquiry Committee will prepare a written Inquiry Report that includes the following information: (a) the name and position of the respondent; (b) a description of the allegation of research misconduct; (c) any external research support, as applicable, including: sponsoring agency, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing that support; (d) a summary of the evidence reviewed; (e) a summary of any interviews conducted; (f) the basis for recommending or not recommending that the allegation warrant an investigation; (g) any comments on the report by the respondent; and (h) a statement that the inquiry was conducted in compliance with this Policy.  Before submitting the final Inquiry Report to the Research Integrity Officer, the Inquiry Committee may submit the report to the Office of General Counsel for a review of legal sufficiency.

9.3.9 Respondent Opportunity to Comment

The respondent shall be provided with a copy of the draft Inquiry Report and shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the draft report to review and comment.  Any comments received will be reviewed by the Inquiry Committee and attached to the final Inquiry Report.  The Inquiry Committee may amend its draft report based on the respondent’s comments, as appropriate. 

9.3.10 Time for Completion of Inquiry

The inquiry must be completed within 60 days of its initiation, unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period.  If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days, the Research Integrity Officer shall document in the inquiry record the reasons for exceeding the 60-day period.

9.3.11 Notifications

     a. To respondent. The Research Integrity Officer shall notify the respondent in writing whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted.  The notice will include a copy of the Inquiry Report, a copy of this Policy, and a copy of the relevant federal agency regulation, as appropriate.

     b. To complainant.  The Research Integrity Officer will notify the complainant who made the allegation whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted and a summary of the basis for that determination.

     c. To Federal agency, where appropriate.  If the research in question has been supported in full or in part by federal funds, the Research Integrity Officer will notify within 30 days the cognizant Federal agency that an investigation is warranted and provide a copy of the Inquiry Report.  The Research Integrity Officer shall cooperate with the Federal agency and will provide additional information, if requested.

     d. Special circumstances.  The Research Integrity Officer shall notify the cognizant Federal agency if any special circumstances may exist as delineated at 42 CFR (Code of Faculty Regulations) §93.318.

     e. To Deciding Official and other University officials.  The Research Integrity Officer shall notify the Deciding Official whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. In instances where the inquiry finds that in investigation is warranted, Deans and/or Center Directors and other University officials may be notified as required.  A copy of the Inquiry Report will be provided.

9.3.12 Documentation of Decision Not to Investigate

If based on the Inquiry Report an investigation is not warranted, the Research Integrity Officer shall secure and maintain for seven (7) years after the inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the inquiry to permit a later assessment by a Federal oversight authority of the reasons why an investigation was not conducted.

Section 4. Guidance and Procedures for Investigation

9.4.1 Investigation Phase Initiation

The investigation must begin within 30 days after the decision has been made that an investigation is warranted.

9.4.2 Notifications 

     a. To respondent. The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent in writing of the allegation(s) to be examined as soon as practical after determining that an investigation is warranted, but before the investigation begins. The respondent will also be given written notice of any new allegations of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue allegations that were not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of the investigation.

     b. To research sponsor. The Research Integrity Officer will notify the cognizant Federal agency or other research sponsor, as required, in writing of the decision to begin an investigation. The notification shall be made on or before the investigation begins and shall include a copy of the final Inquiry Report as described above.

9.4.3 Appointment of the Investigation Committee

9.4.3.1 The Research Integrity Officer, with input from other appropriate University officials and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, shall name a committee consisting of at least three (3) voting members to conduct an impartial and unbiased investigation.  Tenured faculty and/or staff of equivalent status to the respondent shall comprise the majority of the committee voting membership.  Investigation Committee members shall have appropriate scientific or scholarly expertise and shall not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the case.  Members shall not have served on the Inquiry Committee in the case.  A tenured faculty member, who is not from the unit in which the respondent holds a primary appointment, shall be appointed chair of the committee by the Research Integrity Officer.

9.4.3.2 The Director of Research Integrity, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, shall be a non-voting ex officio member of the Investigation Committee and will assist the committee and maintain the records of the proceedings.  A representative of the Office of the General Counsel shall be present at all committee meetings to advise on proper procedure.  If the respondent is a faculty member, the chair of the Committee on Faculty Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities (FRPR) or a representative of the chair, shall be a non-voting ex officio member of the committee to observe that faculty rights are not violated.  If the respondent is not a faculty member, a non-voting member of the committee shall be selected by the University Senate Executive Committee from among the members of the Judicial Board having the same status (e.g., student or unclassified professional staff) as the respondent to observe that the respondent’s rights are not violated.

9.4.4 Charge to the Investigation Committee

9.4.4.1 The Research Integrity Officer shall set the initial scope of the investigation based upon the complaint and the Inquiry Report, including any comments from the respondent, in a written charge to the Investigation Committee.  If during the investigation, new information comes to light that affects the scope of the investigation, the Research Integrity Officer shall determine whether the Investigation Committee should continue with its original charge or amend the scope of the investigation.  The respondent shall be promptly informed in writing, if there is a change in the scope of the investigation based on such new information.

9.4.4.2 The Research Integrity Officer shall define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge that:

     a. Identifies the respondent;

     b. Describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry;

     c. Instructs the Investigation Committee that it must conduct the investigation as prescribed in this Policy;

     d. Instructs the committee that it must interview each complainant, respondent, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent.

     e. Informs the committee that each interview must be recorded or transcribed, that a copy of the recording or transcript must be provided to the interviewee for correction, and that the recording or transcript must be included in the record of the investigation.

     f. Instructs the committee to pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.

     g. Informs the committee that in order to make a finding of research misconduct, it must find (1) that research misconduct, as defined in this Policy, occurred; (2) that the research misconduct represents a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and (3) the respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and (4) the allegation is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

     h. Instructs the committee to prepare a written investigation report that meets the requirements of this Policy at the conclusion of the investigation proceeding.

9.4.4.3 If additional allegations of research misconduct related to the respondent are raised during the investigation, the Investigation Committee shall inform the Research Integrity Officer, who shall make the required notifications of the respondent and research sponsor.  Such additional allegations may be addressed by the Investigation Committee without having to initiate a new inquiry. 

9.4.4.4 The Investigation Committee may engage external individuals with appropriate expertise as consultants where warranted by the nature of the scholarly field or by the nature of the allegations.  Any consultant must not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts with principals of the case and is subject to the same confidentiality requirements as committee members.  Consultants are not members of the Investigation Committee and have no vote. They may not participate in the final committee deliberation or finding.

9.4.5 Investigation Report

The Investigation Committee shall deliver to the Research Integrity Official a written draft report of the investigation that:

     a. Describes the nature of the allegation of research misconduct;

     b. Describes and documents any federal research support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal research support;

     c. Describes specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation;

     d. Includes the University policy and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, unless those were provided previously to the agency;

     e. Identifies and summarizes the research records and evidence reviewed and identifies evidence taken into custody but not reviewed; and

     f. Provides a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur, for each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, and if so,

     1. Identifies whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or reckless disregard;

      2. Summarizes the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent;

     3. Identifies the specific federal research support;

     4. Identifies whether any publications need correction or retraction;

     5. Identifies the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and

     6. Lists any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with other federal agencies.

     g. Includes and considers any comments made by the respondent on the draft investigation report.

 Investigation Time Limits

All aspects of the investigation shall be completed within 120 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report to the respondent for comment, and submission of the final report to the cognizant federal oversight agency, if appropriate.  The Investigation Committee shall keep the Research Integrity Officer apprised about the progress of the investigation.  If the committee is unable to complete the investigation within the 120-day period, the Research Integrity Officer shall contact the cognizant federal oversight agency and request an extension in writing.  If no federal funding was involved in the research, the decision to extend the investigation period shall be left to the Research Integrity Officer.  In either case, the Research Integrity Officer shall document the reasons for the extension and will inform the respondent.

9.4.7 Maintain and Provide Records of the Investigation

The Research Integrity Officer shall maintain for a period of seven (7) years and provide to the cognizant federal agency, upon request, all relevant research records and records of the University’s research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of such interviews.

9.4.8 Protecting Respondent Rights

If at any time during the investigation, the faculty member or other representative who observed the investigation perceives violations of faculty, staff, or student rights have occurred, the faculty member or other representative shall immediately inform the Research Integrity Officer and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (if the respondent is a faculty member) or University Senate Executive Committee (if the respondent is not a faculty member).  Together the Research Integrity Officer and appropriate Senate Executive Committee shall cooperate to satisfactorily resolve matters before the Investigation Committee reaches its conclusions.

Section 5. Administrative Actions and Sanctions

9.5.1 Within 14 days of receiving the final Investigation Report in which a finding of research misconduct has been made, the Research Integrity Officer will deliver the report to the Deciding Official along with any recommendations of the Investigation Committee for administrative actions or sanctions. 

9.5.2 The Deciding Official shall make a written proposal for resolution of the case within 14 days, which shall be provided to the respondent, as well as the chair of the investigating committee.

9.5.3 The Deciding Official shall also provide a copy of the report of the Investigating committee and the proposal to resolve the case to the Faculty or University Senate Executive Committee, which may submit comments to the Deciding Official for consideration.

9.5.4 The Deciding Official shall follow University procedures as identified in the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct and the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations in taking disciplinary action against the respondent.

9.5.5 The findings of research misconduct, as a final agency action of the University, are not subject to appeal within the University.  The respondent may dispute the sanction imposed by filing a written appeal of the sanction imposed by the Deciding Official and based on the record on appeal with the Faculty Rights Board or Judicial Board, whichever has jurisdiction, on the ground that the sanction is substantially disproportionate to the severity of the research misconduct.  The Faculty Rights Board or Judicial Board does not have the jurisdiction or authority to review the Investigating Committee’s finding that the respondent has committed research misconduct.

9.5.6 After considering the written arguments of respondent and Deciding Official and the record on appeal, if the Faculty Rights Board or Judicial Board determines that the respondent has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the sanction is substantially disproportionate to the severity of the misconduct, it shall issue a written recommendation to the Chancellor explaining its decision and recommending that a lesser sanction be imposed.  The Chancellor’s decision on the sanction is final, and no further administrative review is permitted within the University.

9.5.7 Final Notice to Federal Agency on University Findings and Actions

At the conclusion of the research misconduct process, the Research Integrity Officer shall notify the cognizant Federal agency with a written report that:

     a. Includes a copy of the final Investigation Report, all attachments, and any appeal of University disciplinary action;

     b. States whether the University found research misconduct, and if so, who committed the misconduct;

     c. States whether the University accepts the investigation’s findings;

     d. Describes any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent;

9.5.8 Completing the Research Misconduct Process

9.5.8.1 The Research Integrity Officer shall ensure that the inquiry and investigation are carried through to completion and that all significant issues are diligently pursued.  If federal funding is involved, the Research Integrity Officer shall notify the cognizant Federal agency if the University plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that the respondent had admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except the closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted or a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage.

9.5.8.2 After consultation, the cognizant Federal agency may conduct an oversight review of the University’s handling of the case and take appropriate action including:

     a. Approving or conditionally approving closing of the case;

     b. Directing the University to complete its process;

     c. Referring the matter for further investigation by the Federal agency; or

     d. Taking a compliance action.

Contact: 

University Governance
33 Strong Hall
1450 Jayhawk Blvd
Lawrence, KS 66045
785-864-5169

Approved by: 
University Senate, Chancellor
Approved on: 
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Effective on: 
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords: 
USRR, University Senate, Student Senate, Unclassified Senate, University Support Staff Senate, Structure and Functions, University Committees and Boards
Review, Approval & Change History: 

Revisions August 2008

2.3.1 - Change of grade - Updated 6/08, 10/07
2.2.9 – Course repeat policy - Updated 10/07
2.6.5 – Academic Misconduct - Updated 10/07
2.9 – Exception to University Wide Academic Policies - Updated 10/07
2.2.5.4 - The Grading System -withdrawal - Updated 6/08
9 – Guidelines for dealing with allegations of scholarly misconduct – Updated 7/22/08

Revisions FY2009

USRR 1.3.2, Final Exam Schedule
USRR 2.2.2, The Grading System
USRR 2.2.3, Incomplete Grades - Effective beginning Fall 2009
USRR 2.2.5, Withdrawal Periods for KU Continuing Education courses (effective 07/01/09)
USRR 2.2.8, Grade Replacement Policy in Repeat Courses (formerly numbered USRR 2.2.9)
USRR 2.3.1, Change of Grade for Academic Misconduct
USRR 2.3.5, Grade Appeals
USRR 2.4.2.1, Grade Point Average in Repeated Courses
USRR 2.8.1, Academic Forgiveness
USRR 3.1, Graduation Requirements
USRR 5.1.1, Ombuds Office
USRR 6.2.1, Mediation
USRR 6.2.2, Ombuds Office
USRR 6.4.12.1, Housing

Revisions FY2010

Editorial changes approved 10/22/09
USRR 2.3.3 Remove line “in the next semester”
USRR 7.2.1.3 Add change to his/her
USRR 2.1.2 Updates the policy to reflect the use of computers for distributing course syllabi and requires that syllabi be distributed by the 10th class day, with exceptions for certain courses. Updated 2/18/10
USRR 9.3.2, 9.3.3, correction 6/24/10

Revisions FY2011

USRR 3.1.1 Change hours from 124 to 120 2/4/11
USRR 1.3.2 Final Exams – take home exam revised May 26, 2011

Amendments (and Technical changes) approved in FY2012

Technical: Updated references to the Handbook for Faculty and other Unclassified Staff. 8/30/11.
Technical: USRR 2.2.5 Instructional days from 75 to 73 (per calendar change approved by BOR).(8/30/2011)
Technical: USRR 2.2.5 – Removed last paragraph under note regarding KUCE-KU Continuing Education course completion time, enrollment process for KUCE has gone from 6 month to semester. (8/30/2011)
USRR 2.2.7 – Credit-No Credit Policy, making credit/no credit option available to graduate students, and language was added regarding plus/minus grades for CR/NC -to be implemented Spring 2012. (updated 10/6/11)
USRR 2.6.7-Added language to clarify that USRR 2.6.7 applies to academic misconduct D or F grades received for the course as a whole, but not to a reduction of grade on specific work that ultimately results in a D or F grade for the course. (updated 10/6/11)
USRR 2.2.8-added phrase to conform with revised language in USRR 2.6.7(updated 10/6/11)
USRR 2.2.8-A student that has already received a baccalaureate degree may not use the grade replacement policy. (12/14/11)
USRR 3.2.3-addresses the granting of honorary degrees (12/14/11)
USRR 5.2.1.3-additional language, to allow procedures to become effective upon written approval of the General Counsel or 30 days. (12/14/11)
USRR 6.4.3 & 6.4.4.3 delete “and Courses offered through Continuing Education”. Rational: Continuing Education courses are no longer offered for academic credit. (Updated 2/28/12)
Article I. Section 3. Final Examination Schedules- Added “in a class with a regular meeting time, plus the last sentence Projects…in lieu of a final exam , was added to avoid any possible inference that could allow both projects/papers/performances and a final exam during the finals week. Approved by Chancellor May 15, 2012. Effective August 20, 2012.
Article II. 2.2.3.2 Clarify the I (incomplete) policy, changes in the time limit beyond one year may be granted by the dean’s representative upon petition from the student with the endorsement of the course instructor. Approved by Chancellor May 15, 2012. Effective August 20, 2012

Amendments FY2013:

5.3.4-regarding training for panel members in sexual harassment cases
6.1.2 charge of parties to individuals
6.2.3.1 –mediation does not occur in allegations of sexual harassment.
6.3.1.3-time limits on complains of sexual harassment.
6.3.2-changes regarding hearings filed under Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities.
6.4.5-updates the meaning of race and sex discrimination
6.4.15 , 6.4.15.2, - updates grievance procedures for Unclassified Staff members.
6.7.5 – changes audio tape to recording.
Above updated November 5, 2012

8.1.1-8.3.7-Streamlined process to discontinue inactive academic programs.

Approved by Chancellor February 5, 2013.
8.2.8-8.5.1-Impact on students, program discontinuance policy.
Approved by Chancellor February 5, 2013.

2.2.5.4 & 2.6.5-clarifies that a student who withdraws from a course may later have the course reinstated by the school in cases of academic misconduct.  

Amendments FY2014:

5.2.3 changed to state grievance procedures are placed in the policy library by the chair, dean, vice chancellor, or their designee. 
Updated October 31, 2013.
3.1.2-revised to state ...only in the instance of a transcript received after the degree certification deadline.  No exceptions will be granted for coursework completed or in-progress beyond the degree certification deadline. 
Approved by Chancellor May 12, 2014, updated in policy library May 20, 2014

Technical edits: Updated formatting to improve appearance of outline structure - 6/3/2014

Amendments FY2015:
Technical edits: 5.2.3 b. change section from 6 to 4. 9/4/2014

Technical edit: Updated formatting to fix problems with copy/paste functionality. 10/06/2014
1.3.8  - Updated 1.3.8 changed missed work to missed examinations, deleted attempt to,
1.3.9 - Policy to provide student members of the military who may be activated at any time the opportunity to make up exams should they be temporarily activated during a semester. 
1.4.5 - Policy to provide student members of the military who may be activated at any time the opportunity to make up a scheduled examination, quiz, or test. 
Approved by University Senate, Provost and Chancellor.  USRR Updated December 5, 2014.
1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.4.5 will be implemented spring 2015 semester.

Technical edit to fix alignment issues. 01/12/2015
Technical edit to allow linking to more specific parts of the document. 01/30/2015

Amendments FY2016:
6.9: the University of Kansas Court of Parking Appeals Rules and Practice and Procedure be placed in the Policy Library. 
Technical edit: 5.2.2, 6.4.1.1, 6.7.4.1, 6.4.8.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.5 updated University Senate Code references to articles.
2.9 Updated the Request for Exceptions to University Wide Academic Policy.  Approved April 2016
1.3.1 Revised to reflect current process of reviewing final exam rotation. Approved by Chancellor May 31, 2016
2.2.8 Grade Replacement policy, updated to cover when student retakes course and receives a lower grade.  Approved by Chancellor 5/31/16
2.2.10 - Add School of Pharmacy grading, renumbered current 2.2.10, to 2.2.11 and 2.2.12.  Approved by Chancellor 5/31/16
07/15/2016: Fixed anchor link for Article VIII Section 2.
08/24/2016: Policy formatting cleanup (e.g. bolding and spacing).

Amendments FY2017:
2.2.5 - Added SP, LP and NP grading option for dissertation and thesis hours.  Renumbered 2.2.5 - 2.2.12 to 2.2.6 - 2.2.13
Approved by Chancellor October 10, 2016
10/12/2016: Policy formatting cleanup (e.g. bolding and spacing).
Updated 2.4.2.1, to reflect renumbering (listed 2.2.8 which changed to 2.2.9) 10/25/16.
Update gender neutral language as approved by SenEx
USRR 1.3.2-added information regarding online/non-regular conflicts during final exams.  5/16/17
USRR 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4 Updated information regarding Ombuds position.  5/16/17

FY2018
6.4.2.1: removed and leave without pay.  This is no longer a sanction listed in the Faculty Code Of Rights, Responsibilities,and Conduct.  Technical change, approved by FacEx 1/24/17, forwarded to provost July 2017.
USRR 5.2.1.4 and 6.5.2.3 updated  Equal Opportunity Office to Institutional Opportunity & Access
USRR Article IX updated to meet federal regulations for research misconduct, approved by Provost (8/31/17) and Chancellor (9/25/2017), updated in the Policy Library 9/29/17

Academic Categories: 
Governance

Moderation History

Updated: November 29, 2017 - 13:27

Log message: Edited by kreed@ku.edu. Delete "their" which was listed twice in 2.6.5, corrected spacing in 2.6.4

Updated: November 29, 2017 - 10:45

Log message: Edited by kreed@ku.edu. Delete "their" which was listed twice in 2.6.5, corrected spacing in 2.6.4

Can't Find What You're Looking For?
Policy Library Search
KU Today
One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
Nearly $290 million in financial aid annually
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
—ALA
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times