Office Soon | free documents download

If a SEPTA Strike...

AlmAnAc march 14, 1995Death of a StudentDeath of a Staff Member An undergraduate was killed in a colli-sion near Miami during Spring Break, anda staff member died by violence in WestOak Lane earlier. Please see page 2.Published by the University of PennsylvaniaTuesday, March 14, 1995Volume 41 Number 24Faculty Senate Officers Elected for 1995-96 No additional nominations were received by the deadline and therefore the Senate NominatingCommittee’s slate of nominees is hereby declared elected. Effective May 3 the Faculty Senate Of-ficers for the coming year will be: chair:William L. Kissick (medicine) Past chair:Barbara J. Lowery (nursing) chair-elect:Peter J. Kuriloff (education) Secretary:Robert C. Hornik (communication) Past Secretary: Donald H. Berry (chemistry) Secretary-elect: David B. Hackney (radiology/medicine)newly elected as at-large members of the Senate Executive committee for 3-year terms: Helen C. Davies (microbiology/medicine) Jean Henri Gallier (computer & information science) John G. Haddad (medicine) Paul R. Kleindorfer (operations & information management)newly elected as assistant professor members of the Senate Executive committee for 2-year terms: Sarah H. Kagan (nursing) Mary Susan Lindee (history & sociology of science)newly elected to the Senate committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility for 3-year terms: Larry Gross (communication) John Keene (city planning) Susan Watkins (sociology)newly elected to the Senate committee on conduct for 2-year terms: F. Gerard Adams (economics) Elijah Anderson (sociology) Arnold J. Rosoff (legal studies)newly elected to the Senate committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty for 3-year terms: Roger M. Allen (Asian & Middle Eastern studies) Elizabeth E. Bailey (public policy & management)The terms of the new Faculty Senate Officers and the newly elected members of the Senate Ex-ecutive Committee begin with the taking up of new business at the Senate Executive Committeemeeting scheduled for May 3, 1995. The terms of the newly elected members of the Committeeson Academic Freedom and Responsibility, Conduct, and Economic Status of the Faculty beginon May 1. Full committee memberships will be published this fall in Almanac, or please contactFaculty Senate Executive Assistant Carolyn Burdon, 15 College Hall/6303; tel: 898-6943; e-mail:burdon@pobox.upenn.edu.INSIDE•Deaths; Agenda for Council, Trustees, pp. 2-3• Senate: SEC Actions March 1, pp. 2-3 Revised Proposal on Consensual Sex, p. 3 Proposal on Removal of Deans, p. 3• Speaking Out, p. 4• Senate: Just Cause (Revised), pp. 5-9• NCAA Champs; A-3 of the Month, p. 10• Update, Remote Access to PennNet, p. 11• Transit Plans if SEPTA Strike, p. 12Pullout: Public Safety’s Annual Report(Re State/Federal Requirements)PennTransit PlansIf a SEPTA Strike... A strike against SEPTA’s Philadelphia transitdivision beginning at 12:01 a.m., Wednesday,March 15, 1995, now appears possible. Sucha strike may pose transportation problems formany faculty, staff and students of the Univer-sity. To assure full continuation of Universityoperations and services, we recommend thateach department provide bulletin board space orother suitable means for facilitating car pools.To assist in this process, we have created avoice mail Rideshare service. All members ofthe University are urged to make transportationplans in advance of the strike emergency. Administrators are encouraged to be asflexible as possible in adjusting hours for staffpersonnel to meet the needs of individuals andthe operating requirements of their departments.If possible, arrival and departure times should beat other than peak load periods for commuters.Where they can, individuals are encouraged towalk to work or take alternative rail transportationrather than drive to campus. All individuals whocommute are advised to allow sufficient time forthe delays they are likely to encounter. University business will continue as usual.Except for individuals taking bona fide sick time,personal days or vacation, absence from workwill be charged as lost time. Administrators are,however, encouraged to use discretion in makingreasonable allowances for lateness attributableto transportation conditions. Any questionsconcerning these guidelines may be directed tothe Office of Staff Relations at 898-6093. On the back page of this issue is informationrelated to special parking, campus bus serviceplans, and the Rideshare service for use duringthe SEPTA strike. It was prepared by the Depart-ment of Transportation and Parking. Additionalinformation may be obtained by calling Transpor-tation and Parking at 898-8667, or by consultinga pre-recorded message at 898-6358. This information is also on PennInfo.—Steven D. murray,Vice President for Business Services—John Wells GouldActing Vice President for Human ResourcesTo chair 1995-96: Dr. KissickTo chair-elect: Dr. KuriloffTo Past chair: Dr. lowerysenateFrom the Senate OfficeAlmAnAc march 14, 19952(SEc Actions continued next page)The following statement is published in accordance with the Senate Rules. Among other purposes,the publication of SEc actions is intended to stimulate discussion between the constituencies andtheir representatives. Please communicate your comments to Senate chair Barbara J. loweryor Executive Assistant carolyn Burdon, 15 college Hall/6303, 898-6943 or e-mail burdon@pobox.upenn.edu.Actions Taken by the Senate Executive CommitteeWednesday, March 1, 1995 1. Academic Planning and Budget. Past Chair Gerald Porter reported that the committeemet once since the last SEC meeting and discussed the five-year plan of the School of VeterinaryMedicine. Capital Council has not met since the last SEC meeting. 2. Trial Almanac/Compass merger. Martin Pring, Chair, Senate Committee on PublicationPolicy for Almanac, announced that the trial merger would be delayed one month until the beginningof April due to personnel changes and the need for further preparation. 3. Nominees from the Senate Committee on Committees for 1995-96 vacancies. SECmembers were given one week to submit additional nominations. A mail ballot will be circulated toall SEC members. 4. Proposed revision of the just cause procedure. SEC received amendments to the pro-cedure reflecting the views expressed at the last meeting. These revisions were:— current members of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility aredisqualified from serving on a University-wide panel;— the President is required to consult with the Chair, Past Chair and Chair-elect of the FacultySenate if the President proposes to reduce the sanction recommended by the Hearing Boardand must obtain unanimous consent of the three Senate Chairs if the President proposes toincrease or make a lateral change in the sanction;— an appeal of the President’s action can be made to SCAFR rather than to the Trustees.It was moved and seconded that “The Senate Executive Committee— accepts the procedure as revised,— calls for publication of the revised procedure in Almanac after spring recess (pp. 5-9, this issue),— places discussion of the procedure on the agenda of the annual Faculty Senate meeting April 19,and— sends the revised procedure to the Faculty Senate membership after the April 19 meeting fora mail ballot with a simple majority required for approval.” Discussion focused on the following two issues of the revised procedure:— the need to allow an appeal of a procedural error to an independent body before the HearingPanel’s decision is transmitted to the President;— the President’s ability to raise the sanction.It was moved and seconded that the procedure be amended as follows: “The President may notincrease or make a lateral change in the sanction decided by the Hearing Panel.” The motion wasapproved by an overwhelming majority. It was moved and seconded that the procedure be amended as follows: “Where the respondentalleges to the President that there has been a significant procedural error and the President doesnot find a significant procedural defect the respondent can then appeal to the Senate Committee onAcademic Freedom and Responsibility.” A substitute motion was moved and seconded that “The defendant shall have the right to appealon procedural grounds to the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility beforeit goes to the President. If SCAFR finds a procedural error it remands to the Hearing Panel.” Thesubstitute motion failed. The amendment was approved by an overwhelming majority. The original motion “That SEC accepts the procedure....,” as amended, was approved by anoverwhelming majority. The just cause subcommittee of the Committee on the Faculty was charged with incorporatingthe revisions into the procedure.5. Policy on Consensual Sexual Relations. (See text, opposite page.) The revision is proposedas replacement of the first three full paragraphs on p. 96 of the Handbook for Faculty and AcademicAdministrators. Members of the committee that drafted the proposed policy stated that it is intendedto clarify ambiguities in the existing policy and to protect the faculty. SEC members opposed tothe policy stated it was a reaction to the times, was an attempt to legislate on moral issues, and thatthe University should “stay out of the bedroom.” Those supporting the policy stated that the policyrecognizes that consensual sexual relations can interfere with the academic goals of the University.The proposed policy makes a clear statement that in those cases where there is the potential for aconflict between personal and academic responsibilities, consensual sexual relations are unethicaland unacceptable in the University community. An amendment was moved and seconded that the word “discourage” in the phrase “discourageconsensual sexual relations with undergraduates” be replaced with the word “prohibit.” The amend-ment was defeated. It was agreed that “or remedial measures” be inserted in the third paragraph of the proposed policywith the intention that actions could be taken by a Dean or Department Chair to alter the academicrelationship between a faculty member and student whose actions are in violation of the proposedpolicy. The proposed policy as amended was adopted by an overwhelming majority.Deaths One Penn student was killed and anotherinjured over Spring Break in a head-on collisionin the Florida Keys on March 5, in which twoothers also died—a friend of the Penn studentsfrom Miami Beach, and the driver of the speed-ing vehicle that struck them. The speeding driver was a woman from BucksCounty who reportedly had been eluding police inFlorida for over 100 miles before the accident.Justin Koppel, C’96, was a 20-year-oldnative of Westlake Village, California, who hadwritten sports stories for The Daily Pennsylva-nian last spring, and had interned at NBC Newsin Burbank. He is survived by his parents, Mr. and Mrs.Richard Koppel, his sister, Julie, his grand-mother, Regina Koppel, and his girlfriend,Carol Schneiderman. The family requests thatcontributions be made to Agoura High SchoolTrack, 28545 West Driver Avenue, Agoura Hills,CA 91301. His passenger and brother in Sigma AlphaEpsilon, Scott Weisblum, W’96, suffered injuriesto the head and arm. Mr. Weisblum has beenrecuperating at his home in Miami Beach andis expected to return to finish the semester.Michael Zablotsky, 20, of Miami Beach, achildhood friend of Scott Weisblum, also diedin the collision.* * *Rochelle Webster, administrative assistant inthe Policy Research, Evaluation and Measure-ment Division of the Psychology in Educationdepartment of the Graduate School of Education,was killed on March 1 at the age of 27. A man against whom a Protection from AbuseOrder was issued in October confessed to stab-bing her at his home in West Oak Lane; he laterjumped from the Benjamin Franklin Bridge andwas presumed dead by the Philadelphia Police. Ms. Webster, who joined the University in1987 as secretary to the chair of Psychology inEducation, had earlier worked for the Pennsyl-vania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Co.,Gaston Financial Services of the New EnglandMutual Life Insurance Co., and the NuclearRegulatory Commission. She had majored in business administra-tion at St. Augustine College in Raleigh, NorthCarolina, and in 1989 she graduated from theThompson Institute of Philadelphia, NationalEducation Center, where she concentrated onmedical office management, receiving honorsin four of her six modules. Ms. Webster is survived by her mother,Beverly Webster; her father, Harry Dunn; son,Brandon Anthony Webster Davis, 3; stepfather,William Webster, Sr.; sister, Antoinette Webster;brothers, William, Jr. and Charles Anthony Web-ster. A memorial service was held on March 7 atthe First Timothy Baptist Church in West OakLane, where she had been an active member. Mes-sages of sympathy can be sent to Mrs. BeverlyWebster, 129 U Street NW, Washington, D.C.20001.Tuition at Trustees: March 17 Tuition and fees for the coming yearare on the agenda of the stated meeting ofthe Trustees Executive Committee Friday,March 17, at 2 p.m. in the Faculty ClubTea Room. Those wishing to attend asobservers may register an interest withthe Office of the Secretary, 898-7005.senateFrom the Senate OfficeAlmAnAc march 14, 199536. Discussion with the President and Provost on Proposed Procedure for Removal of a Dean. (See text, below.) The issues raised during the discussion of the proposed policy were:— this procedure should be parallel to that for the hiring of a dean;— the Advisory Committee have a minimum of 3 faculty from the concerned school elected bythe school faculty, one of whom should hold the minority view;— that the Advisory Committee have more than 5 faculty with a majority from the concerned school;— there be provision for faculty follow-up action;— an unbiased Advisory Committee is required and no faculty from the concerned school shouldserve;— the procedure may be too easily triggered;— political reality will control its use; and— the Advisory Committee should be elected by SEC and appointed by the Provost.The Provost expressed interest in having a procedure. The President noted that the administration must haveits own set of procedures that will make it unnecessary to use this procedure for removal of a dean. The proposed procedure was approved by an overwhelming majority.7. Next SEC. Discussion on the proposed procedures on interim suspension of faculty andprocedures on department closings was deferred to the next meeting. Agenda of theUniversity Council MeetingWednesday, March 15, 19954 to 6 p.m.McClelland Lounge, The QuadrangleI. Approval of the minutes of February 8, 1995meeting.
II. Reports of the Chairs (Steering Committee,Graduate and Professional Student Assembly,Undergraduate Assembly, Penn ProfessionalStaff Assembly, and A-3 Assembly) Time limit for reports and clarifications: 20 minutes
III. Extended report by the provost on budgetand plans for the next academic year. Time limit: 20 minutes presentation, 20 minutes discussion.
IV. Report on graduate education by the viceprovost for graduate studies, associate dean anddirector of graduate studies, and assistant vicepresident for policy planning and federal rela-tions. Time limit: 40 minutes.
V. Resolution from Council Committee onCommunications. Time limit: 5 minutes “The University Council Committee on Com-munications would like to establish a general principle that access to communication and infor-mation services be provided to all members of the University community. As the first step towards this goal, the Committee urges the expeditious completion of the ResNet project.”VI. Update on judicial reform.Time limit: 5 minutes.
VII. Adjournment by 6 p.m.senateSEC Actions ContinuedProposed Policy on Consensual Sexual RelationsBetween Faculty and Students Proposed by the Senate committee on the Faculty February 1, 1995 Adopted by the Senate Executive committee march 1, 1995 (Proposed for insertion in the Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators III.F.II.B. p. 96, replacing first three full paragraphs.)The relationship between teacher and student is central to the academic mission of the University.No non-academic or personal ties should be allowed to interfere with the integrity of the teacher-student relationship. Consensual sexual relations between teacher and student can adversely affectthe academic enterprise, distorting judgments or appearing to do so in the minds of others, andproviding incentives or disincentives for student-faculty contact that are equally inappropriate. For these reasons, any sexual relations between a teacher and a student during the period of theteacher/student relationship are prohibited. The prohibition extends to sexual relations between agraduate or professional student and an undergraduate when the graduate or professional student hassome supervisory academic responsibility for the undergraduate, to sexual relations between depart-ment chairs and students in that department, and to sexual relations between graduate group chairs andstudents in that graduate group. In addition, it includes sexual relations between academic advisors,program directors, and all others who have supervisory academic responsibility for a student, and thatstudent. Teachers and academic supervisors who are sexually involved with students must decline toparticipate in any evaluative or supervisory academic activity with respect to those students. The Provost, Deans, Department Chairs and other administrators should respond to reports ofprohibited sexual relations that are brought to them by inquiring further and, if such reports appearto be accurate, initiating appropriate disciplinary action or remedial measures against the teacher orsupervisor involved. This policy supplements the University’s policy on Sexual Harassment. In addition, although thispolicy prohibits consensual sexual relations only between a teacher/supervisor and that individual’sstudent, the University strongly discourages any sexual relations between members of the faculty(or administration) and undergraduates.Proposed Procedure for Removal of a DeanProposed by Senate committee on Administration February 7, 1995Adopted by the Senate Executive committee march 1, 1995(Proposed for insertion in the Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators Section I.E.2.) On page 8: Change heading “Consultation for Deans, Associate Deans, and Vice Deans” to “Ap-pointment of Deans, Associate Deans, and Vice Deans” and begin paragraph with preamble:The Statutes of the Corporation (9.4) state that a Dean shall be appointed or removed by theTrustees, upon recommendation by the President and the Provost, and according to policiesand procedures promulgated by the President and the Provost. On page 9, before heading “Appointments of Acting Administrators” add a new heading: “Removal of a Dean” The procedure for the removal of a Dean prior to the expiration of his or her term may beinitiated by the President and the Provost. It may also be initiated by a faculty vote of no confi-dence taken at a meeting in accordance with the bylaws of the school. The vote of no confidencemust be confirmed by a majority of the standing faculty in a subsequent mail ballot. In either case, the Provost shall appoint, in consultation with the Senate Committee on Con-sultation, an Advisory Committee of at least five faculty members, a majority of whom shall befrom outside of the school. The Committee shall be charged by the Provost and the Presidentto gather information relevant to the issues specified in the charge, including interviews withthe faculty and the Dean. The Committee shall forward its recommendations, with supportingdocuments, to the Provost, the President, and the Dean, within four weeks of its appointment. The Committee shall report its recommendations to the faculty of the school.Annual Meeting of theFaculty SenateWednesday, April 19, 19953 p.m. to 5 p.m., Room B-26 Stiteler Hall The agenda will include the report ofthe Senate Committee on the EconomicStatus of the Faculty (to be published),and discussion of the proposed revision ofthe just cause procedure (pages 4-8 of thisissue).— From the Faculty Senate OfficeCorrection: Council Bylaws On February 28 Almanac published“Of Record” a version of the revisedUniversity Council Bylaws that had beenonly partially updated. A major error ofsubstance is that it did not reflect a changevoted by Council on November 9, 1994,which amends the description of theLibrary Committee (p. 9) to read:“...The Committee shall consist of eight faculty members, one A- staff member, one A-3 staff member, two graduate/professional students, and two undergraduate students. The director of the Biddle Law Library and the director of libraries shall be nonvoting ex officio members of the Committee.”The Bylaws will be republished in full ata future date. In the meantime, readers areurged to correct the relevant paragraphin any copies of the February 28 editionthey use or circulate. We sincerely regret the error.—K.c.G.AlmAnAc march 14, 19954Speaking OutSpeaking Out welcomes reader contributions. Short, timely letters on University issues can be acceptedThursday noon for the following Tuesday’s issue, subject to right-of-reply guidelines.Advance notice of intention to submit is appreciated.—Ed.‘True to Form...’ I recently had an opportunity to read[in] the January 24 Speaking Out the lettersubmitted by Dr. Clark protesting an articleentitled “One Man’s Vision of Haiti” publishedin the University-supported Red and Blue. Yet again I am reminded of the prevailingracist attitude which propagates through thecampus environment. Dr. Rodin has inheriteda hefty task—that of attempting to extinguishthe overwhelming ignorance that beshadowsour esteemed institution while attempting topreserve each individual’s freedom of speech.After all, aren’t these the virtues upon whichour great country was founded? I am not ahistorian; however, I would surmise that thesame principles that precipitated the establish-ment of the United States of America were pre-served in the establishment of the Universityof Pennsylvania. One need not be a historianto realize that neither was established withthe interests of peoples of African descent inmind. One needs only to review the treatmentof these peoples throughout the entire existenceof said institutions to observe how the valuesof an entire culture is regarded. Is it therefore any wonder that so-calledminorities are so underrepresented at “Home-coming” and other alumni activities? Whystudents and alumni of African descent showhalf-hearted interest in activities that reverethe Good Ol’ Red and Blue? I maintain my connection with the Univer-sity because I highly regard what Penn has tooffer. The quality of the education is stellar, itsfaculty unparalleled. As a scientist, a doctoralcandidate, and most recently an educator, Irecognize the responsibility that accompanieseducation, achievement and access. But everysingle day of my undergraduate experience:ranging from the day a tenured science profes-sor explained to me how “black people are ig-norant and incapable of being engineers” (whosubsequently gave me an “F” to support histhesis) to the inaugural Du Bois College House“Bomb Threats” (marked by a recent 10-yearcommemoration, I understand) that causedmany students to experience psychologicaldisorders with no academic relief for the bal-Managing the President’s House I write on the first day after break towelcome everyone back to campus andspringtime at Penn. Ahead of us lie warmdays, clear skies, challenging courses, theNCAA playoffs, the Penn Relays and manyother riches. I wish everyone in the Penncommunity a bright and spirited spring. I also write, with both amusement and dis-tress, to clear up a misunderstanding causedby an employment ad for a manager of thepresident’s house that was posted early lastweek on PennInfo and ran in a supplementto The compass on Thursday, March 9. The ad correctly publicized that we arelooking to hire someone for the job, whichis now vacant. As it was performed in earlieradministrations, and as the first lines of the admade clear, the job involves organizing andsupervising the large number of Universityevents that take place at the house, purchasingsupplies, keeping financial records, supervis-ing house maintenance, coordinating thehouse event calendar with the president’soffice calendar and similar duties. Thepresident’s house is a large operation wherea series of University events takes place eachmonth, and being house manager is a big andtiring job. What the job most certainly does notinvolve—and this is where the last lines ofthe ad went humorously haywire—is caringfor our overgrown dog, disciplining our twoteenage sons (that one made me laugh outloud!) or helping with homework (eithermine or the boys’). What’s behind the mistakes in the ad isa miscommunication among me, one of mystaff and the ad writer. I stressed to my staffthat job applicants would need to be toldthat two active boys and a big dog share thepresident’s house with me and my husband.The point was to convey important informa-tion, because while some people would enjoyworking in a home with two boys and a dog,others would not. Instead, what somehow got communi-cated between the staff member and thead writer—who now feel quite embar-rassed—was a requirement that the housemanager tutor the boys and perform animalhusbandry. This is just not the case. I write because I feel it is important to cor-rect this misunderstanding. Penn has embarkedon a critical course of administrative restructur-ing designed to streamline and improve ouradministrative functions and, we hope in theend, to save money that can be directed to vitalacademic programs. This is much in my mindthese days, and the last thing I would do—thelast thing any of us should do—is frivolouslyspend University resources. Indeed, total projected expenditures forthe president’s house for this fiscal year andnext will be lower than expenditures in fiscalyear 1994, the year before I came to Penn.If you were to adjust for inflation, projectedexpenditures in real terms would be lowerstill. Similarly, only two people will be onthe house payroll—the house manager anda household assistant. Before I came to Pennthere were three. I intend for this administration—includ-ing the president’s office, the president’shouse and all other units—to be efficient,effective and lean. This is one of my toppriorities at Penn.— Judith Rodin, Presidentance of the school year, reminded me that mypresence was conditional. The original bombthreats, I should mention, were in response toour housing an invited guest to freely voicehis views in a University forum. Nevertheless, a child named Jeremy,preparing to embark on a career in finance,can manage to insult an entire culture, bastard-ize statistics, denigrate a people’s religiousbeliefs and espouse a host of inherently racistand ignorant “thoughts” as a man with whathe terms a “decent amount of respect overthis whole affair.” Jeremy feels that he mustrespond to this “furor” (an interesting choiceof terms) with yet another inspiring essay of“an intellectually higher caliber” and perhaps“some ...revisions of thought.” I study (and teach*) a discipline which isalmost exclusively white-male dominated ata University that worships its football coachand immortalizes lions in every possible me-dium. I empathize with “Hask” and “Cora”and most recently Rev. Burnley (whom Ihaven’t met) for accepting the responsibilityof “bridging the gap.” I sincerely applaud theefforts of Drs. Swain-Cade, Moneta and Clark(whom I also haven’t met) for attempting toneutralize the ignorance that permeates myalma mater. This condition is not a well-keptsecret. Just ask the many alumni of Africandescent who occasionally read a campuspublication or tune into CNN just beforereceiving a letter from the “Penn Fund.” I serve on numerous alumni boards andcommittees in an attempt to serve as a “vehiclefor hope and change.” I find it difficult andam no longer compelled to rationalize someof the things I read about Penn. The “passiveresponse” to these occurrences is probablywhy I still don’t know all the words to OurSchool Song. I am confident that I express the prevailingsentiment of my peers who attended Pennin my day and have established careers inevery possible field. I rue the day that I willbe forced to confront Jeremy and his “peers”as they attempt to influence the educational,financial and otherwise influential institutionsof the future. (And you can rest assured shouldI have the opportunity to teach or otherwiseinfluence Jeremy’s children or peers it willbe unbiased, professional and of the highestintellectual caliber.) But as Penn taught melong ago, that is part of my charge. So here I sit, in the mountains, unabash-edly, teaching students how to manage andhow to build, learning how to teach and how tobuild—preparing myself to fulfill my chargeand to confront the effects of the ignorancethat permeates my existence.— Deanna corbett, MEAM (SEAS) ’84 *The author is a doctoral candidate and instructor in civil and Environmental En-gineering at Penn State.AlmAnAc march 14, 19955I. Introduction and DefinitionsA. Introduction The imposition of a sanction on a faculty member of the University ofPennsylvania is a rare event. However, when situations that might lead tosuch an action arise, they must be handled fairly and expeditiously. It isessential to have a process that both protects the rights of faculty membersand addresses the legitimate concerns of the University. This policy replacesthe previously existing “Suspension or Termination of Faculty for JustCause” and “Procedures Regarding Misconduct in Research” (Handbookfor Faculty and Academic Administrators 1989, as revised 1991, pages47-51 and 117-121 respectively) and also modifies the “Procedures of theSenate Committee on Conduct” (Almanac October 31, 1989). Any cases initiated after this policy is in force, even if the alleged ac-tions preceded its adoption, will be governed by the procedures prescribedhere. This document simplifies the previous processes and relates them toa Dean’s procedures for imposing minor sanctions. The result is a morecoherent and less cumbersome process. These procedures do not changethe scope or powers of any Academic Freedom and Responsibility Com-mittee as defined in Article 10 of the Statutes of the Trustees (1983).B. Definitions 1. “Charging party”—the Provost, a Dean, a Provost’s or Dean’sdesignee who shall be a faculty member of the University, or a Group forComplaint [Definition No. 6]. 2. “Complainant”—individual bringing to the attention of a Dean or theProvost a situation that may call for a sanction [Definition No. 14] againsta faculty member [Definition No. 5]. The complainant may be a studentor faculty or staff member of the University, or any individual outsidethe University who believes that a major infraction [Definition No. 8] orminor infraction [Definition No. 10] of University behavioral standardsby a faculty member has occurred. 3. “Counsel”—an advisor, who may be an attorney. 4. “Dean”—the Dean of one of the University’s schools. 5. “Faculty member”—a member of the standing faculty, standingfaculty clinician-educator, research faculty, the academic support staff(not including students), or a post-doctoral fellow. 6. “Group for Complaint”—a charging party elected by the standingfaculty of a school, by a secret ballot, from its own tenured professors whichby the fact of its election shall be empowered to take action that may resultin the imposition of a major sanction [Definition No. 9] pursuant to theseprocedures. The size of the Group for Complaint shall be determined bythe faculty but shall not be less than three. 7. “Hearing Board”—either the University Tribunal or the School Com-mittee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility [CAFR]. The respondentshall determine whether the Hearing Board will be the University Tribunal[Definition No. 18] or the School CAFR. 8. “Major infraction of University behavioral standards”—an actioninvolving flagrant disregard of the rules of the University or of the customsof scholarly communities, including, but not limited to, serious cases of thefollowing: plagiarism; misuse of University funds; misconduct in research[Definition No. 12]; repeated failure to meet classes or carry out majorassigned duties; extortion of sexual relations within the University com-munity, improperly providing controlled substances to, or physical assaultupon, a member of the University community; the bringing of charges ofmajor or minor infractions of University standards against a member ofthe University community, knowing these charges to be false or recklesslyindifferent to their truth or falsity; violation of the University’s conflict ofinterest policy or commission of serious crimes such as, but not limitedto, murder or rape. 9. “Major sanction”—serious penalties that include, but are not limitedto, termination; suspension [Definition No. 15]; reduction in base salary;reduction in total salary; zero salary increases stipulated in advance for aperiod of four or more years; removal of the right to submit specific researchproposals internally or externally or the right to carry on specific externalactivities for compensation; denial of the use of University research orlibrary facilities. 10. “Minor infraction of University behavioral standards”—an actioninvolving disregard of the University’s rules or of the customs of scholarlycommunities that is less serious than a major infraction. 11. “Minor sanction”—penalties less serious than a major sanctionthat may include, but are not limited to, a private letter of reprimand; apublic letter of reprimand; special monitoring of specific future research,teaching, supervision of students, or other activities; zero salary increasesfor a period not to exceed three years; and assignment of special dutieswithin the faculty member’s capability. 12. “Misconduct in research”—fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting results of research; ordeliberate deviations from accepted practice in carrying out research thatcreate a risk of death or injury. It does not include honest error or honestdifferences in interpretation or judgment in evaluating research methods orresults. It does include failure to follow agreed upon protocol if this failureresults in unreasonable risk of harm to humans or other vertebrates. 13. “Respondent”—the faculty member complained against. 14. “Sanction”—penalties imposed by the Trustees, the President, theProposed Procedure Governing Sanctions Taken AgainstMembers of the Facultymarch 1, 1995The Senate Executive Committee at its meeting on March 1, 1995 approved the new Proposed Procedures Governing SanctionsTaken Against Members of the Faculty (see below). The Faculty will vote on this proposal after discussion at the annual meetingof the Senate, April 19,1995. Approval will require a majority of the votes cast. The current proposal incorporates the followingchanges from the previous proposal:• The respondent may choose to have his or her case heard by either the Committee on Academic Freedomand Responsibility [CAFR] of his or her school or by a University Tribunal.• An appeal may be filed to the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility [SCAFR]if the respondent believes that the procedure was defective and the President does not remand the decision.If SCAFR finds the procedure faulty, it can remand the case to the Hearing Board.• The President no longer has the right to increase a sanction. The “President may depart from the Hearing Board’srecommendations only in exceptional circumstances and only after consulting the Chair, Past Chair and Chair-elect of theFaculty Senate.”The only departures permissible are (a) to discontinue the proceedings for failure of proof or (b) to impose a minorinstead of a major sanction.—From the Faculty Senate Officesenate Proposed ProcedureAlmAnAc march 14, 19956Provost, or a Dean on a faculty member. 15. “Suspension”—temporary removal of all or a substantial portion ofa faculty member’s University activities with or without compensation. 16. “Termination”—cancellation of a faculty member’s appointmentand compensation, as of a certain date. 17. “University Just Cause Panel”—a University-wide Panel fromwhich University Tribunals are chosen. This Panel shall be composed oftenured professors: twelve from the School of Arts and Sciences; twelvefrom the School of Medicine; six each from the School of Engineering andApplied Sciences, the School of Veterinary Medicine, and the WhartonSchool; and three from each of the remaining schools of the University.They shall be appointed, for staggered three-year terms except where anappointment is to complete the term of a person who leaves the panel early.Terms start on July . Appointments may be renewed. The Chair of the Faculty Senate, after consultation with the Past Chairand Chair-elect, has the responsibility for designating the members of thePanel from current or past members of the various School Committees onAcademic Freedom and Responsibility and/or past members of the SenateCommittee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (SCAFR). This shall be done in consultation with the current or past chairs of thevarious Committees on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, and withdue regard for the need for appropriate diversity on University Tribunals.It is also the responsibility of the Chair of the Faculty Senate to inform theprospective members of the Panel about their responsibilities as membersof a Tribunal. 18. “University Tribunal”—a body of six tenured professors selectedfrom the Just Cause Panel to hear evidence in a particular case. No morethan two members of a Tribunal shall hold primary appointments in thesame school. Not less than one of the members shall be from the school ofthe respondent. The Tribunal shall be created by the process described inSectionV(A). That process shall continue until a Tribunal of six that includesat least one member of the faculty of the school of the respondent can bedesignated. Once the members of the Tribunal have been designated, theywill then elect a chair. Members of the Tribunal shall serve until the caseis completed regardless of the termination date of their appointment to theUniversity Just Cause Panel. The Chair of the Tribunal shall conduct theTribunal’s business and preside at hearings but not cast votes except to breakties. Once having served as members of a Tribunal, faculty members areexcused from further membership on the University Just Cause Panel for theremainder of their terms. The Chair of the Faculty Senate shall designate afaculty member from the same school to serve the remainder of the term inaccordance with the process described in Definition No. 17. 19. “Working days”—shall mean Mondays through Fridays exceptwhen the University is officially closed.II. Preliminary ProceduresA. Types of Charges Three types of charges, governed by three separate but related processes,are covered by these procedures: misconduct in research, other major infrac-tions of University behavioral standards, and minor infractions of Universitybehavioral standards. In each situation, appropriate action shall be initiatedpromptly by a member of the University administration who shall normallybe the Dean of the school in which the faculty member’s primary appoint-ment lies but who may, in unusual circumstances, be another Dean or theProvost. The Dean or Provost may act personally or through a delegate.B. Preliminary Investigation When a Dean or the Provost has been made aware of a situation whichmay involve the types of charges mentioned above, the Dean and theProvost shall consult with each other and determine whether to initiate apreliminary investigation. If they decide to initiate a preliminary investiga-tion, the chair of the department, if any, will be consulted and the facultymember will be notified. This investigation will usually be carried out bya committee consisting of two tenured faculty members whose primaryappointments are not in the same department (for schools organized indepartments) or school (for schools not organized in departments). In thecase of misconduct in research, the faculty members must be appropriatelyknowledgeable in the relevant field. However, in special circumstances,the preliminary investigation may be carried out by other individuals oragencies. In all cases, the Dean and the Provost shall consult with eachother and with at least three members of the tenured faculty concerning theformat of the investigation and the personnel who should carry it out. The Preliminary Investigating Committee shall interview those con-cerned, engage in fact finding and summarize its work in a report sent tothe Dean and Provost. During these proceedings, all parties shall makeevery effort to protect the identity of the individuals involved.C. Further Action by Dean or Provost Having received the report of the Preliminary Investigating Committee,the Dean or Provost shall normally interview the faculty member in thepresence of any department chair concerned and afford opportunity forinformal adjustment of the matter. If the matter is adjusted informally tothe satisfaction of the Dean or Provost and the faculty member, no furtherproceedings shall be invoked by them. If the matter is not adjusted infor-mally, the Dean or Provost shall consult with several tenured members ofthe University faculty who are not currently members of the UniversityJust Cause Panel. Relying on these consultations and on the report of thePreliminary Investigating Committee, the Dean or Provost shall decidewhether to proceed to the formal investigation stage in a case involvingmisconduct in research, to invoke the just cause procedures in a caseinvolving other major infractions of University behavioral standards, toimpose minor sanctions directly in a case involving minor infractions ofUniversity behavioral standards, or to drop the matter. If the decision isto drop the matter, the Dean or Provost shall notify the respondent andany complainant in writing. In cases of alleged misconduct in research,a record of the preliminary investigation and the final decision shall bemaintained in the Office of the General Counsel for the period requiredby the federal government.D. Formation of a Group for Complaint If the Dean or Provost decides to drop the matter, no further proceed-ings shall be initiated with the single exception of the faculty’s prerogativeto form a Group for Complaint. If a faculty has by resolution requested itsDean to examine a situation possibly involving imposition of a major sanc-tion and within fifteen working days following the date such resolution wasadopted, neither the Dean, another Dean, nor the Provost has either initiatedproceedings for imposition of a major sanction or provided reasons for notinitiating such proceedings that are deemed satisfactory by the faculty, then,within thirty working days, the faculty may elect from its own members aGroup for Complaint. Members of the University Just Cause Panel and theSchool CAFR shall withdraw from faculty meetings when these matters areconsidered and shall not be eligible for membership on the Group for Com-plaint. The secretary of the faculty shall record the minutes of this meetingand attach as appendices any written information upon which the faculty’svote to elect the Group was based. If formed, the Group shall receive thismaterial and promptly conduct an investigation and may initiate proceedingsfor imposition of a major sanction if it determines that there is substantialreason to believe that just cause exists therefor. A determination by the Groupnot to initiate further proceedings shall be reported to the faculty, the Dean,the Provost, the respondent and any complainant, with the Group’s reasonsfor making such determination, and no further action shall be taken by thefaculty. However, the Group for Complaint may recommend that the Dean orProvost, where appropriate, impose a minor sanction. If a Dean, Provost orGroup for Complaint decides to pursue the case against the faculty member,that individual or group shall initiate other proceedings as described in theremaining sections of this policy.III. Minor SanctionA. Imposition by Dean or Provost If, having received the report of the Preliminary Investigating Commit-tee and consulted with the tenured faculty members, the Dean or Provostconcludes that the situation involves only a minor infraction of Universitybehavioral standards, the Dean or Provost shall impose a minor sanction onthe respondent. He or she shall notify the respondent and any complainantof this decision and take the steps necessary to put the sanction into effectafter a two-week time period for the possible initiation of the mechanismsneeded to create a Group for Complaint.B. Appeal to Faculty Grievance Commission The respondent may apply to the Faculty Grievance Commission forrelief from any sanction imposed by the Dean or Provost, except for asenate Proposed ProcedureAlmAnAc march 14, 19957sanction recommended by a Hearing Board under Section V(G). However,subsequent formation of a Group for Complaint requires that the GrievanceCommission cease all activity regarding such relief until a final decisionhas been reached concerning a major sanction.IV. Misconduct in ResearchA. Initiation of Formal Investigation If the Dean or Provost, relying upon the report of the Preliminary Inves-tigating Committee and the consultations with tenured faculty members, orif a Group for Complaint believes that misconduct in research has occurred,there shall be a formal investigation. The charging party shall inform therespondent of the nature of the charges, identify any complainant to therespondent and notify both parties and, if required by law or regulation,any external organization funding the research, that a formal investigationis being initiated.B. Formation of Formal Investigating Committee The Dean or Provost shall then promptly appoint a Formal InvestigatingCommittee consisting of at least three persons, none of whom is a memberof the same department (or the same school if the school is not organizedin departments) as, or a collaborator with, the respondent. The membershipof a formal investigating committee shall be selected with the advice ofthe Chair, Past Chair and Chair-elect of the Faculty Senate. The committeemembers should be unbiased and have appropriate backgrounds for judgingthe issues raised. At least one of them must be a member of the faculty of theUniversity. During the committee’s proceedings, all parties shall make everyeffort to protect the identities of the respondent and any complainant.C. Duties of Formal Investigating Committee The Formal Investigating Committee shall undertake a thorough in-vestigation of the charges including a review of all relevant research data,proposals, reports, financial records, publications, correspondence, memo-randa of telephone calls, etc. and the report of the Preliminary InvestigatingCommittee. Whenever possible, interviews shall be conducted with thecharging party, the respondent and any complainant as well as with oth-ers having information of relevance. Summaries of these interviews shallbe prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revisionand included as part of the investigation file. During its proceedings, theCommittee shall be advised by legal counsel. When appearing before theCommittee, the charging party and the respondent may each be accompa-nied by independent counsel. Counsel may advise the party in question butshall not participate otherwise in the proceedings. The Committee shall notconduct trial-type hearings. The charging party and the respondent cannotbe required to appear before the Committee at the same time.D. Report of Formal Investigating Committee The Formal Investigating Committee shall normally complete theinvestigation within ten weeks of appointment. After its investigationis finished, the Formal Investigating Committee shall promptly submita written report to the charging party with copies to the respondent bycertified mail and to the Dean and Provost. The report shall describe theproceedings in detail and provide full documentation of the Committee’sfindings and conclusions. The respondent may send a written statementof objections to the report to the Provost within twenty working days fol-lowing the date the report was sent by the Committee. The Provost shallpromptly send the report of the Formal Investigating Committee, alongwith any statement of objection from the respondent, to the charging party,the Chair of the Faculty Senate and, if required by law or regulation, toany external organizations funding the research in question. The formalinvestigation process shall be completed within four months from the dateof the appointment of the Committee.E. Temporary Safeguards and Actions by Administration During the formal investigation, the Provost and the Dean shall takeappropriate administrative action to protect the funds supporting sponsoredresearch and to ensure the fulfillment of the purposes of any externalfunding. The Provost may apprise external funding organizations of anydevelopment during the formal investigation that may affect current orproposed funding of the respondent’s research. If the formal investigationis terminated before completion, e.g., as a result of the resignation or deathof the respondent, the Provost shall give written notification of this termi-nation and the reasons therefor to any external funding organization.F. Further Action by the Dean or Provost Having received the report of the Formal Investigating Committee, theDean or Provost, relying primarily upon that document, but also noting thereport of the Preliminary Investigating Committee and any statement ofobjections from the respondent, shall determine whether it appears that thecharges are unfounded, or that a major or minor infraction of Universitybehavioral standards has occurred.G. Actions for Unfounded Charges If the charging party agrees that the charges are unfounded, the mattershall be dropped and the respondent, any complainant, and the Dean andProvost shall be notified.H. Actions for Minor Sanction If the Dean or Provost believes that the respondent has committed aminor infraction of University behavioral standards, he or she shall impose aminor sanction on the respondent. The respondent may apply to the FacultyGrievance Commission for relief. However, if a Group for Complaint issubsequently formed, the Commission shall cease all activity regarding suchrelief until a final decision has been reached concerning a major sanction.I. Charging Party Initiates Appointment of Hearing Board If the charging party believes that the respondent has committed misconductin research, the charging party shall proceed as indicated in Section V.J. Involvement of Other University Committees Some forms of misconduct in research, such as failure to adhere torequirements for the protection of human subjects or to ensure the welfareof laboratory animals, are governed by specific federal regulations and aresubject to the oversight of established University committees. However,violations involving failure to meet these requirements may also be coveredby the procedures discussed here or by other duly established Universityrules and regulations.V. Major SanctionA. Charging Party Requests Formation of Hearing Board— Respondent’s Options If the charging party believes that a major infraction of University be-havioral standards has occurred, the charging party shall promptly requestthat the Chair of the Faculty Senate determine, within three working days,whether the respondent wishes to be heard by a University Tribunal or theschool CAFR. If the respondent chooses the University Tribunal, the Chairof the Faculty Senate shall provide a list of ten faculty members from theUniversity Just Cause Panel who will constitute the potential members ofthe University Tribunal. The ten potential members are to be drawn from a randomly ordered listof members of the University Just Cause Panel that is stratified to insurethat at least two shall hold primary appointments from the school of therespondent and no more than three shall hold primary appointments froma single school. Only the Chair of the Faculty Senate and the ExecutiveAssistant to the Faculty Senate Chair shall know the order of the nameson this list. The Chair of the Faculty Senate shall provide them with copiesof these procedures.B. Charging Party and Respondent Informed of Potential Members of Hearing Tribunal If the respondent chooses to be heard by a University Tribunal, theChair of the Faculty Senate shall, within five working days following therespondent’s choice, provide to the charging party and the respondent analphabetic listing of the potential members of the Tribunal.C. Disqualification of Potential Members of Hearing Board . The charging party and the respondent shall be entitled to move todisqualify for prejudice any potential member of the Hearing Board. Suchmotion shall set forth, in writing, the reasons therefor and shall be delivered—to the Chair of the Faculty Senate if the hearing is to be conducted bya University Tribunal or the chair of the School CAFR if the Hearing isto be conducted by that body—not later than 15 working days prior to thedate set for the hearing. 2. Motions to disqualify members of the school CAFR shall be decidedby the remaining members of the committee. If the remaining members decidethat disqualification is proper, an alternate member, if any is available, shallserve as a substitute for the disqualified member. If an alternate member issenate Proposed ProcedureAlmAnAc march 14, 19958not available, the remaining members shall select a substitute. 3. If the respondent has chosen to be heard by a University Tribunal,the Chair of the Faculty Senate shall convene the potential members ofthe Tribunal after the deadline for motions to disqualify has passed, butno later than twenty-five working days after the potential members havebeen named. The potential members shall immediately elect a pro temchair from those members who are not named in a motion to disqualify.These members shall decide, by majority vote, whether to disqualify themembers named in the motions. The pro tem chair shall provide the listof potential members who have not been disqualified to the Chair of theFaculty Senate. The Chair of the Faculty Senate will designate the six ofthe remaining eligible members who rank highest on the randomized listas the University Tribunal for this case.D. Members of University Tribunal Named If more than four members of the group or all members of the faculty ofthe school of the respondent are disqualified, the Chair of the Faculty Senateshall, without identifying those who were not excused, provide an additionallist of four more than the number excused, in the manner provided in V(A).E. Hearing Board Determines Whether to Proceed Once the composition of the Hearing Board is determined, the chargingparty shall promptly send to the Chair of the Hearing Board, the respondentand the Dean and Provost the report of the Preliminary Investigating Com-mittee and a succinct written statement, based on the earlier investigations,which summarizes the grounds for the complaint and for the recommenda-tion of a major sanction. In the case of misconduct in research, the reportof the Formal Investigating Committee shall be included. The notice to therespondent shall be by certified mail. To determine whether formal hearingsshall take place, the Hearing Board shall immediately consider the statementfrom the charging party, consult the relevant documents including the recordsof previous Hearing Boards, and afford the charging party opportunity topresent oral and written argument, but shall not hold a hearing to receiveevidence. If the Hearing Board concludes that the grounds stated, if true,would clearly not constitute just cause for imposition of a major sanction,it shall issue a report to that effect, sending copies to the charging party, thePresident, any complainant, and the respondent. The substance of the com-plaint shall not be the basis of any further proceedings with respect to majorsanctions. However, the Hearing Board may remand the case to the Deanor Provost for further proceedings or actions in accordance with paragraphIII(A) that relates to a minor sanction. If the Hearing Board concludes thatthe grounds stated, if true, might constitute just cause for the imposition ofa major sanction, and it believes that there is probable cause that in furtherproceedings the grounds stated will be found to be true, it shall conduct suchproceedings as hereinafter provided. The Hearing Board shall normally issueits determination within fifteen working days of receiving the complaint.If the Hearing Board fails to issue a determination within thirty workingdays, the substance of the complaint shall not be the basis of any furtherproceedings with respect to major sanctions.F. Notification of Right to Submit Evidence If further proceedings are conducted, the Chair of the Hearing Boardshall send to the respondent, by certified mail, written notice that therespondent may preserve the right to submit evidence by notifying theHearing Board’s Chair, in writing, within fifteen working days followingthe respondent’s receipt of such notice. The Hearing Board may at its discre-tion and in exceptional circumstances, grant a short extension of this timeperiod at the respondent’s request and upon a showing of good cause. Asummary statement of the evidence to be presented by the charging party,including a list of witnesses, copies of relevant extracts from the statutesand standing resolutions of the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania,a copy of this document and copies of any other University documentsthat are relevant to the respondent’s procedural rights in this matter shallbe included with the notice. These documents shall have been supplied tothe Chair of the Hearing Board by the Dean or Provost.G. Hearing Board Procedure in the Absence of Participation by Respondent If the respondent does not ask to submit evidence before the Hear-ing Board, the charging party shall nevertheless present evidence to theHearing Board. The Hearing Board shall then make a written report of itsfindings, conclusions and recommendations and send a copy of its reportand a transcript of the testimony prepared as in Paragraph V(I) below tothe charging party and the respondent within twenty working days fol-lowing the receipt of the charging party’s evidence. If the Hearing Boardconcludes that the charging party has not shown clear and convincingevidence of just cause for the imposition of a major sanction, no majorsanction may be imposed, and the substance of the complaint shall notbe the basis for any further proceedings with respect to major sanctions.However, based on clear and convincing evidence of a minor infraction, theHearing Board may recommend that the Dean or Provost impose a minorsanction and he or she will normally implement that recommendation. Ifthe Hearing Board concludes that the charging party has shown clear andconvincing evidence of just cause for the imposition of a major sanction,the Hearing Board shall promptly send to the President a copy of its reportrecommending the major sanction and a transcript of the testimony.H. Hearing Board Procedure when Respondent Participates If the respondent asks to submit evidence before the Hearing Board, theChair of the Hearing Board shall notify the charging party and the respondentin writing of the date and place of the hearing, within five working daysfollowing the receipt of the respondent’s request. The hearing shall be heldat the earliest date that is agreeable to the respondent, charging party andHearing Board, and ordinarily no more than three months from the notifica-tion date. Delay of the hearing beyond three months from the notificationdate shall require a written request to the Hearing Board from the chargingparty or respondent, and be granted only if the Hearing Board deems thatmore time is required. Not less than fifteen working days prior to the date ofthe hearing, the respondent shall provide to the Chair of the Hearing Boarda written answer to the charging party’s statement of the grounds for thecomplaint and for the recommendation of a major sanction.I. Procedures During a Hearing Hearings shall be private with two exceptions. The respondent shallhave the right to invite as observers representatives of national professionalacademic associations concerned with matters of academic freedom andtenure. Other observers may be invited to attend if the charging party, therespondent and the Chair of the Hearing Board consent. A transcript ofthe hearing shall be taken by a stenographer furnished by the University.The charging party has the burden of proving by clear and convincingevidence that there is just cause for imposition of a major sanction againstthe respondent. Both the respondent and the charging party may appearpersonally throughout the hearing; both may have the assistance of counsel.The Hearing Board shall afford the respondent and the charging party theopportunity to present oral and written argument. The respondent and thecharging party shall have the right to confront the witnesses and to questionthem personally or through counsel. They may call witnesses and shallreceive the cooperation of the University administration in securing theattendance of such witnesses and the production of such documents as maybe relevant. The extent of document production shall be determined bythe Hearing Board. The Hearing Board may permit telephone conferencecalls in lieu of the appearance of witnesses.J. Report of Hearing Board and Objections of Respondent Upon concluding the hearings, the Hearing Board shall deliberateprivately. It shall determine solely upon the basis of information presentedat the hearings whether or not the charging party has established by clearand convincing evidence that a major infraction has occurred. If so, theHearing Board shall recommend what the major sanction should be. Deci-sions shall require a majority of the members participating. If the HearingBoard determines that just cause for the imposition of a major sanctionhas not been established, no major sanction may be recommended. In thatevent, the Hearing Board may recommend a minor sanction if it determinesthat a minor infraction has occurred. The Hearing Board shall concludeits deliberations promptly and send to the President a written report inwhich it shall set forth its findings, conclusions, recommendations, atranscript of the hearings. Copies of these documents shall also be sent tothe respondent by certified mail, and to the charging party, and the Deanand/or Provost. The respondent may, within thirty working days followingthe receipt of the documents, send to the President any objections to thefindings, conclusions or recommendations of the Hearing Board.(document continued next page)senate Proposed ProcedureAlmAnAc march 14, 19959K. President’s Actions . The President, relying only upon the materials forwarded by theHearing Board and objections submitted by the respondent, shall normallyaccept the Hearing Board’s recommendations. 2. The President may depart from the Hearing Board’s recommendationsonly in exceptional circumstances and only after consulting the individualsthen serving as the Chair, Past Chair and Chair-elect of the Faculty Senate(“the three Chairs”). Permissible departures are limited to (a) discontinuance ofthe proceedings for failure of proof and (b) the imposition of a minor insteadof a major sanction. When a departure is proposed, the President shall sendto the three Chairs all of the documents received from the Hearing Boardand the respondent and shall secure their views before taking action. Shouldany of the three Chairs be unable to serve, the other two Chairs shall selecta replacement from the available former Chairs of the Faculty Senate. 3. If the proceedings are discontinued, the substance of the complaintshall not be the basis for any further proceedings with respect to majorsanctions. 4. The President may remand the matter to the Hearing Board becausethere has been a significant defect in procedure. If the matter is remandedto the Hearing Board, the President shall send to the Hearing Board therespondent’s objections, if any. The Hearing Board shall reconvene, take stepsto repair any procedural defects, and hold an additional hearing, if needed,granting to the parties those procedural rights provided in paragraph V(I).The Hearing Board shall then send a second report to the President, alongwith the transcript of any second hearing, with copies to the respondent bycertified mail, and to the charging party and the Dean and/or Provost. 5. Within two weeks of the receipt of the materials forwarded by theHearing Board, the President shall send to all interested parties a letterstating his or her decision and the reasons. The President’s decision, excepta decision to remand or a decision that is the subject of an appeal underV(L), is final within the University.L. Appeal of President’s Decision If the respondent objects that there has been a significant defect inprocedure but the President declines to remand the matter to the HearingBoard under V(K)(4), the respondent may appeal on that ground in writ-ing to SCAFR. The President shall promptly forward to SCAFR all ofthe documents upon which the decision was made. SCAFR shall reviewthe documents forwarded by the President and the respondent’s writtenstatement of appeal and shall decide the appeal within thirty workingdays of the receipt of the documents. If SCAFR finds that there has beena significant defect in procedure, it shall remand the matter to the HearingBoard for further proceedings in accordance with V(K)(3). Otherwise, thePresident’s decision shall be final.M. Termination If the Hearing Board recommends that the respondent’s appointmentbe terminated, it shall also recommend a date of termination, which cannotbe more than one year beyond the date of the President’s final action. Ifthe President accepts the Hearing Board’s recommendation to terminatethe respondent’s appointment, he or she must also accept the terminationdate recommended by the Hearing Board. Salary and benefits shall ceaseon that date.N. Hearing Board Records On the completion of the case the Hearing Board shall transfer all of itsrecords to the office of the Faculty Senate. These records shall be stored ina locked file. The Chair, Past Chair and Chair-elect of the Faculty Senate,are responsible for obtaining and maintaining these records.VI. Interim Suspension A faculty member shall not be suspended prior to the conclusion ofproceedings under this policy unless continuance poses a threat of im-mediate harm to the faculty member or others. Any such suspension shallbe with salary. A Dean’s decision to suspend a faculty member shall beaccompanied by a concise statement of the factual assumptions on whichit is based and the grounds for concluding that the faculty member’scontinuance threatens immediate harm. Such a decision should be madeonly after consultation with the school CAFR, which should, wheneverpossible, afford the faculty member an opportunity to be heard, and topresent evidence why interim suspension should not be imposed.VII. General MattersA. No Public Statements When Proceedings Are in Progress To preserve the integrity of the process, members of the Universitycommunity should avoid public statements about charges and proceedingsthat involve minor or major sanctions until the proceedings have beencompleted.B. Actions When Charges Are Unfounded If final action under Section V completely exonerates the respondent,the University shall reimburse that individual for the reasonable costs andexpenses, including attorney fees, incurred in his or her defense. In thatevent the administration should also attempt to repair any damage wronglydone to the reputation of the respondent or of any complainant, providedthat the complainant acted in good faith. If it appears that the complain-ant did not act in good faith, the administration shall investigate and takeappropriate action.C. Statements Following a Minor Sanction If the respondent has been subjected to a minor sanction, the Dean orProvost, after consultation with the President and discussion with the Chairof the Faculty Senate, may publicize this fact.D. Statements Following a Major Sanction If the respondent has been subjected to a major sanction, the President,after informal discussion with the Chair, Past Chair and Chair-elect of theFaculty Senate, shall publish in Almanac a statement describing the caseand its disposition in appropriate detail.Aide Memoir: Initialization of Panels The following statement shall be sent to the Chair of the FacultySenate on approval of this policy: Initially, one-third of the members of the University Just Cause Panelchosen from each school shall serve for one year, one-third for two yearsand one-third for three years. Thereafter, all appointments shall be forthree-year terms, except where appointments are made to complete theterms of persons who leave the panel before the end of their terms.senate Proposed ProcedureFulbright’s 50th: Dr. Kuklick, March 22 Starting the celebration of this year’s Golden Anniversary of theFulbright program of international scholarly exchanges, the Office ofthe Vice Provost for Research will host a workshop for Penn membersinterested in winning Fulbright awards. Dr. Bruce Kuklick, a Pennhistorian who has been an Fulbright Scholar, is a guest speaker in theworkshop conducted by Ralph Blessing, program officer for LatinAmerica at the Council for International Exchange of Scholars. Mr. Blessing will give an overview of opportunities available, and ofstrategies for selecting a suitable award and preparing a competitive ap-plication. Peer review and selection processes will also be discussed. The two-hour workshop begins at 10 a.m. in the Club Room ofFaculty Club on Wednesday, March 22. Reservations should be madewith Miriam Stevenson, 898-7236.On Academic Careers for Grad Students, Postdocs The Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Career Planningand Placement will host three programs (below) on Tuesday, March21 in the Ben Franklin Room of Houston Hall. Registration can be made by phone to 898-7530 or e-mail tovick@a1.relay.upenn.edu. Tenure and Beyond; Janice Madden, Vice Provost for GraduateEducation; 4 p.m. making the most of Your First Job; Susan Davidson, computerand information science; Thomas Safley, history; 4:45 p.m. Interdisciplinary Options: When Your Ph.D. is in One Fieldand You Want a Job in Another; Paul Kleindorfer, operations andinformation management; 5:45 p.m.AlmAnAc march 14, 199510Basketball: Third PerfectIvy League Season Coming back from the season’s only non-winning half-time score, a 28-28 tie, Penn Men’sBasketball beat Princeton (69-57) on March 8 tocomplete its third undefeated Ivy League sea-son (14-0 Ivy, 22-5 overall) and to win its 43rdstraight Ivy League game. Headed to their 16thNCAA Tournament—their third, consecutive,under Fran Dunphy, head coach since 1989—theQuakers played a season of basketball whichincluded rankings in the Associated Press Top25 and a win over Michigan (62-60). Penn meetsfifth-seeded Alabama on Thursday in the firstround of the tournament at Baltimore, startingat 7:40 p.m. Guard Matt Maloney (C ’95), who transferredfrom Vanderbilt as a sophomore and played threeyears of undefeated Ivy basketball with the Quak-ers, was named Ivy League Player of the Year.Mr. Maloney’s season shooting percentage, 46percent; his three-point shooting percentage, 44.9percent; and his 117 assists were his highest ever.Penn’s leading scorer for the last two seasons, hescored nearly 15 points per game this year. Philadelphian Jerome Allen (W ’95), theguard named Ivy player or co-player of the yearin the last two seasons, and Matt Maloney werenamed to the Ivy League first team; center EricMoore (W ’95), forward Shawn Trice (C ’95),who scored a personal high of 26 points in thePrinceton game, and forward Ira Bowman (W’96) to the second team; guard Scott Kegler (C’95) received an honorable mention.Donna Smith, above left, with mary Jo Pauxtis, who nominated her as Employee of the month. Thebanner is one they made for Susan Thomson, Ms. Smith’s supervisor, when she was in the hospital. Donna Smith, office administrative assistantin the Department of Dermatology, has beenselected as the February Employee of the Monthby the A-3 Employee Recognition Committee.Ms. Smith joined the department in January 1991and was promoted in December 1992. Beforecoming to Penn, Ms. Smith worked as a purchas-ing assistant at the Franklin Institute ScienceMuseum. She completed a data processing trainingcourse at Pace Data Systems in 1983 and had alsoA-3 Assembly’s Employee of the Month: Donna Smith of Dermatology/Medicineattended Community College of Philadelphia. Dr.John Stanley, chair of the department, said that“Donna is helpful, cheerful and always willingto assist.” Susan Thomson, clinical departmentadministrator, said “Donna motivates othersto complete tasks, she demonstrates on a dailybasis a high level of productivity.” “ Donna goesout of her way to help, always takes the time toanswer questions,” said Dr. Norman Schechter,research associate professor of dermatology. Shewas described as one of the “unsung assets inthe department of dermatology, she’s effective,pleasant and always willing to give assistance,”said Dr. Albert Kligman, professor emeritus ofdermatology. “Donna finds solutions to prob-lems, rarely complains about her workload andis not afraid to take on tasks however large orsmall. She has consistently proved to be a realasset to the department,” said Mary Jo Pauxtis,research administrator.Drugs, Alcohol and Caring at PennDear University of Pennsylvania Student: In accordance with the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, the University ofPennsylvania seeks to encourage and sustain an academic environment that promotes thehealth, safety and welfare of the whole community and which sets forth exemplary conductand behavioral expectations for students as members of this community. A recent first-evernational survey on undergraduate student drinking conducted by Harvard’s School of PublicHealth shows that, “while there has been an overall decline in drinking in American societyas a whole...[there is] no similar decline among college students.”

refer page:-------http://www.officesoon.com/doc/182142-if-a-septa-strike