The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”) is a federal statute providing students at the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ (the “University”) with certain rights concerning their “education records.”

Compliance with this policy is required. Violations may result in disciplinary, corrective, or administrative action consistent with the University’s Code of Conduct and applicable policies, up to and including termination of employment, revocation of access or privileges, termination of agreements or relationships with the University, or other appropriate action.

Policy Details

Generally, under FERPA, students have the right to: (1) consent to the University’s disclosure of their education records, or personally identifiable information contained in their education records, except to the extent that FERPA authorizes disclosure without prior consent; (2) inspect and review their own education records; and (3) seek amendment of their own education records that the student believes to be inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the student’s privacy rights. As addressed further below, the University fully complies with the statutory provisions of FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, as well as FERPA’s implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 99.

Students concerned with the University’s compliance with FERPA have the right to file complaints with the U.S. Department of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office.

I. Disclosure of a Student’s Education Records

Under FERPA, a student’s “education records” are records, files, documents, and other materials that contain information directly related to a student and that are maintained by the University or by a person acting for the University. Generally, FERPA precludes the University from disclosing a student’s education records, or personally identifiable information contained within an education record, to anyone other than the student, unless the student provides a written consent permitting the disclosure.

Certain exceptions exist to this general rule, though, which permits the University to disclose education records without a student’s prior written consent, depending on the circumstances. Each of these exceptions is laid out in FERPA’s implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 99.31.

For example, the University does not need a student’s prior written consent to disclose education records to school officials with legitimate educational interests in the information, as determined by the administrator responsible for the file. The University defines a “school official” as anyone employed by the University in an administrative, supervisory, academic, research, or support staff position (including law enforcement unit personnel and health staff); retired/emeritus faculty or staff; any person or company acting on behalf of the University (such as an attorney, auditor, or collection agent); any member of the Board of Trustees or other governance/advisory body; and any student serving on an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance committee, or assisting another school official in performing his or her tasks. And a school official has a legitimate educational interest in an education record if the official needs to review that information to fulfill his or her professional responsibility.

In addition, the University may provide a student’s education records to other educational agencies or institutions that have requested the information, and in which the student seeks or intends to enroll or is already enrolled, so long as the disclosure is for purposes related to the student’s enrollment or transfer. And the University can disclose information to the parents of a dependent student without the student’s prior written consent.

The University may also disclose, without prior written consent, information from a student’s education record that it has designated as “directory information.” The University considers the following types of information to be directory information for purposes of FERPA: the student’s name, University ID number, campus address, e-mail address, home address, telephone number(s), date and place of birth, academic fields of study, current enrollment (full or part time), dates of attendance, photographs, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, degrees and awards received, weight and height of athletic team members, previous educational agencies or institutions attended, and other similar information. The University may disclose, publicize, or respond to requests for such information at its discretion, unless the student indicates otherwise in his/her privacy settings in the Student Information System (UR Student), which the student has the right to do. Students may rescind their no-release request at any time through UR Student. Moreover, the use of this information for commercial or political purposes is prohibited unless approved by the appropriate dean.

II. Procedure to Inspect and Review a Student’s Education Records

Under FERPA, students also have, with certain limited exceptions, the right to inspect and review their own education records. A student’s request to inspect or review their own education records should be submitted in writing to the Office of the University Registrar, and the request should identify the record(s) they wish to inspect or review. If the records are not maintained by the Office of the University Registrar, that office may refer the student to the correct University official to whom the request should be addressed. Such requests will be honored within 45 days of when the University receives the request.

III. Procedure to Request Amendment of a Student’s Education Records

FERPA also gives students the right to request that the University amend their own education records, if the student believes the education records contain information that is inaccurate, misleading, or in violation of the student’s rights of privacy. Any student who seeks to amend their education record on these grounds must state their objection in writing to the Office of the University Registrar. Objections should be clearly outlined and specify the basis and reasoning behind the student’s request for amendment. The University will decide whether to amend the student’s record as requested within a reasonable amount of time after receiving the request, but generally within 45 days of receiving a student’s objections. If the University decides not to amend the record as requested by the student, the University will notify the student of the decision and advise them of their right to a hearing to challenge the content of their education record under 34 C.F.R. § 99.21. Additional information regarding the hearing procedures will be provided to the student when notified of the right to a hearing.

The post Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) – Student Record Privacy Statement appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

Definitions

Hazing: Any intentional, knowing, or reckless act committed by a person (whether individually or in concert with other persons) against another person or persons regardless of the willingness of such other person or persons to participate, that—

1. is committed in the course of an initiation into, an affiliation with, or the maintenance of membership in, a student organization; and
2. causes or creates a risk, above the reasonable risk encountered in the course of participation in the institution of higher education or the organization (such as the physical preparation necessary for participation in an athletic team), of physical or psychological injury including—
   1. whipping, beating, striking, electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on someone’s body, or similar activity;
   2. causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement in a small space, extreme calisthenics, or other similar activity;
   3. causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing another person to consume food, liquid, alcohol, drugs, or other substances;
   4. causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing another person to perform sexual acts;
   5. any activity that places another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words or conduct;
   6. any activity against another person that includes a criminal violation of local, State, Tribal, or Federal law; and
   7. any activity that induces, causes, or requires another person to perform a duty or task that involves a criminal violation of local, State, Tribal, or Federal law.

Student Organization: (a) An organization at the University (such as a club, society, association, varsity or junior varsity athletic team, club sports team, fraternity, sorority, band, or student government) in which two or more of the members are students enrolled at the University, whether or not the organization is established or recognized by the University; or (b) Organizations whose membership, charter, and/or governance span across multiple distinct colleges/universities (e.g., multi-institutional charters, city-wide fraternity/sorority chapters) and that have (i) at least one member that is enrolled at the University, whether or not the organization is established or recognized by the University, or (ii) zero enrolled student members, but the organization is recognized by the University.

Psychological Injury: Psychological injury in the context of hazing refers to severe mental, emotional, and/or cognitive harm inflicted on individuals during initiation or affiliation rituals, that can result in long-term suffering or a decline in functioning. These injuries are “hidden harms” that go beyond physical damage, involving humiliation, degradation, and abuse that trigger profound emotional distress, such as anxiety, depression, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Symptoms can vary widely across individuals, even those who experienced the same injury.

Physical Injury: Any act that causes, or creates a substantial risk of causing, impairment of physical condition, pain, or injury to an individual, often resulting from forced activities, abuse, or dangerous stunts. Such acts are typically performed during initiation, admission, or affiliation with an organization—such as a fraternity, sorority, or athletic team—and occur regardless of the victim’s willingness to participate.

Scope/Compliance

This policy applies to all ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ students and student organizations, as defined below.  The policy also applies to employees (including faculty and staff) at all ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ locations.

Compliance with this policy is required. Violations may result in disciplinary, corrective, or administrative action consistent with the University’s Code of Conduct and applicable policies, up to and including termination of employment, revocation of access or privileges, termination of agreements or relationships with the University, or other appropriate action.

Policy Details

It is the policy of the University that hazing, as defined by above, is strictly prohibited. This policy provides information regarding how to report incidents of hazing, the process used to investigate hazing, and information on applicable laws. It also provides an overview of hazing prevention and awareness programs at the University, as well as information about the University’s Campus Hazing Transparency Report.

I. Applicable New York State Laws

A. New York Penal Law § 120.16 (Hazing in the first degree). A person is guilty of hazing in the first degree when, in the course of another person’s initiation into or affiliation with any organization, he intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct, including, but not limited to, making physical contact with or requiring physical activity of such other person, which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to such other person or a third person and thereby causes such injury. Hazing in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.

B. New York Penal Law § 120.17 (Hazing in the second degree). A person is guilty of hazing in the second degree when, in the course of another person’s initiation or affiliation with any organization, he intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct, including, but not limited to, making physical contact with or requiring physical activity of such other person, which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to such other person or a third person. Hazing in the second degree is a violation.

Note that these are New York criminal statutes, which define hazing differently than how the University has defined hazing for purposes of this policy. At this time, the University is not aware of any Tribal or Local laws relating to hazing applicable to the University.

II. Reporting Incidents of Hazing

Anyone who becomes aware of hazing is encouraged to promptly report the incident as follows. Students who report hazing may also be covered under the University’s Medical Amnesty Policy, addressed in the Standards of Student Conduct, as appropriate.

How to Report Incidents of Hazing:

A. Any hazing incident involving an emergency or imminent threat to the health or safety of any person should be reported immediately to the University Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) or 911. If an individual suspects that any such incident constitutes a crime, they should also contact DPS or call 911 immediately. Contact information for DPS is: 612 Wilson Blvd, Rochester, NY 14627; (585) 275-3333.

B. Any incidents or potential acts of hazing that do not constitute an emergency may be reported to any of the following offices:

• Student Conduct
  510 Wilson Commons
  (585) 275-4085
  conflict.management@rochester.edu
• Student Activities
  201 Wilson Commons
  (585) 275-9390
  student.activities@rochester.edu
• Submit a CARE report, through the CARE reporting tool

Those impacted by hazing may choose to report incidents or details to law enforcement and/or the University, through the above reporting procedures.

III. Investigation

A. Criminal Investigations:
It is the policy of DPS to conduct vigorous and thorough investigations of all criminal offenses and/or violations of student conduct that are observed by or brought to the attention of DPS, in accordance with DPS policies. Each investigation will seek to determine if there are violations of University Policy and/or applicable criminal laws.

B. Student, Student Organization Investigations:
If, after an investigation, there are alleged conduct violations, Student Conduct will initiate the conduct process, as described in the Standards of Student Conduct. While an investigation or process is ongoing, an organization may face interim actions and other restrictions as appropriate and as detailed in the Standards of Student Conduct.

C. Employee Conduct Investigations:
Following every report of an alleged violation of this policy committed by an employee of the University, a thorough and prompt investigation appropriate to the nature of the report will be conducted by a person(s) with subject matter knowledge and oversight responsibility of the employee (e.g., Office of University Audit, HR, Compliance, etc.).  This process is outlined in the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Code of Conduct.

IV. Prevention and Awareness Programs

The ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ is dedicated to fostering a safe and respectful campus environment through proactive hazing prevention and education initiatives. As part of this commitment, all staff, faculty and students have access to educational programming designed to increase awareness, promote prevention strategies intended to stop hazing before hazing occurs, and empower individuals to recognize and respond to hazing behaviors.

Additionally, all incoming students are required to participate in an online hazing prevention class. This class provides an overview of hazing prevention, the requirements of the federal Stop Campus Hazing Act, and practical bystander intervention strategies. Participants will learn to recognize hazing behaviors, understand the different categories of hazing and develop the skills and confidence to safely intervene when they witness hazing or other concerning behavior.

V. University’s Campus Hazing Transparency Report

The University will maintain a report of all findings of violations of the institution’s hazing policy for five (5) previous consecutive years related to hazing that are reported to the institution. The University will update the report biannually.

The post Hazing appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

In the event of an emergency occurring on campus, the University will initiate and provide, without delay, immediate Emergency Notifications to the appropriate segment(s) of the University community upon the confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving the immediate threat to the health or safety of students, employees and visitors.

In an effort to provide timely notice to the University community, and in the event of a Clery Crime that may pose a serious or ongoing threat to members of the University community occurring within the University’s Clery Geography, a Timely Warning is distributed to all students and employees via an email notification. The Associate Vice President of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) or their designee reviews all reports to determine if there is a serious or ongoing threat to the community and if distribution of a Timely Warning is warranted.

The University may issue crime alerts, referred to as a Public Safety Advisory, to inform the campus community of reported crimes, suspicious activity, or other safety concerns that do not meet the criteria for an Emergency Notification or Timely Warning, but where providing information may help promote safety awareness and prevention.

Definitions

Campus Security Authority (CSA): An individual who meets one of the following definitions: a) campus police or security department personnel; b) any individual who has responsibility for campus security; c) any individual or organization specified by University policy as an individual or organization to which students and employees should report criminal offenses; or d) an official of the University who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities.

Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)) is a federal statute that requires colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to comply with various requirements related to safety on campus.

Clery Act Crimes: Crimes designated as reportable under the Clery Act, which include:

Criminal Offenses

• Murder
• manslaughter (including negligent manslaughter and nonnegligent manslaughter)
• sex offenses (including rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape)
• robbery
• aggravated assault
• burglary
• motor vehicle theft
• arson
• hazing

Hate Crimes – any of the above-mentioned Criminal Offenses and any incidents below that were motivated by bias:

• larceny-theft
• simple assault
• intimidation
• destruction/damage/vandalism of property

Under the Clery Act, the categories of bias include the victim’s actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, and disability.

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Offenses

• domestic violence
• dating violence
• stalking

Weapons, Drug, and Liquor Law Violations – arrests or referrals for campus disciplinary action for illegal weapons possession, drug-related violations, or liquor law violations

Clery Geography: For purposes of Clery Act reporting and the University’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report, Clery Geography refers to (1) buildings and property that are part of the University’s campus(es); (2) the University’s non-campus buildings and property; and (3) public property within or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the University’s campus(es).  Each of these locations is defined further below:

1. On campus – any building or property owned or controlled by the University within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the University and used by the University in direct support of, or in a manner related to, the University’s educational purposes, including residence halls; or any building or property within this same reasonably contiguous area, that is owned by the University but controlled by another person, is frequently used by students, and supports institutional purposes (such as a food or other retail vendor).
2. Non-campus building or property – any building or property owned or controlled by a student organization that is officially recognized by the University; or any building or property owned or controlled by the University that is used in direct support of, or in relation to, the University’s educational purposes, is frequently used by students, and is not within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the University.
3. Public property – all public property, including thoroughfares, streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities, that is within the campus, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus.
4. Separate campus – Additional location that (a) the University owns or controls, (b) is not reasonably geographically contiguous with the main campus (i.e., River Campus), (c) has an organized program of study, and (d) there is at least one person on-site acting in an administrative capacity. These locations are considered separate campuses for purposes of the University’s Clery Act reporting obligations.

Confirmation: A University Official (or officials) has verified that a significant emergency or dangerous situation exists.

Emergency Notification: Notification to the campus community (or an appropriate segment or segments of the campus community) upon confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees occurring on campus.

Official: Any person who has the authority and duty to take action or respond to a particular issue on behalf of the University.

Timely Warning: Notification to the campus community of a Clery Crime(s) that occurs on the University’s Clery Geography that is reported to CSAs or local police agencies and is considered by the University to represent a serious or continuing threat to the safety of students and employees.

Public Safety Advisory: A safety message distributed to the campus community to provide information about crimes or safety concerns that do not meet the criteria for a Clery Timely Warning or Emergency Notification, but that may still be relevant for community awareness and prevention.

Scope/Compliance

This policy applies broadly to the entire University community, including faculty, staff, and students; post-doctoral appointees, contractors, vendors, and consultants when they are doing business with or on behalf of the University; individuals who perform services for the University as volunteers; and visitors, guests, or other individuals who are participating in the University’s education program or activities.

Compliance with this policy is required. Violations may result in disciplinary, corrective, or administrative action consistent with the University’s Code of Conduct and applicable policies, up to and including termination of employment, revocation of access or privileges, termination of agreements or relationships with the University, or other appropriate action.

Policy Details

The University will provide Emergency Notifications, Timely Warnings, or Public Safety Notices, based upon the circumstances of any given situation, described further below.

I. Emergency Notifications

Emergency Notifications are used to immediately notify the campus community (or an appropriate segment or segments of the campus community) upon confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation occurring on campus involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees. Examples of situations that may require an Emergency Notification include, but are not limited to:

• Active shooter or armed suspect;
• Fire or explosion;
• Hazardous material release;
• Severe weather events;
• Gas leaks;
• Major utility failures; or
• Other dangerous conditions posing an immediate threat.

The following procedures outline how the University will confirm the existence of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees, in accordance with the Clery Act.

A. Receipt of Information

Information regarding a potential emergency may be received through various sources, including but not limited to:

• Department of Public Safety;
• Local law enforcement or emergency responders;
• University departments (e.g., Environmental Health & Safety, Student Affairs);
• Campus Security Authorities (CSAs); or
• Members of the campus community.

B. Initial Assessment

Upon receipt of this type of information, DPS, EH&S, (or designated authority) will:

• Assess the nature of the reported situation;
• Determine whether the incident may constitute a significant emergency or dangerous situation; and
• Evaluate whether there is a potential immediate threat to the health or safety of the campus community.

C. Verification of the Emergency

The University will confirm the existence of an emergency through one or more of the following methods:

• Direct observation by DPS; Lab Safety, Fire Safety, Occupational Safety, or Hazardous Waste personnel; or first responders;
• Communication with local law enforcement, fire, or emergency medical services;
• Communication with University Official or departments; or
• Review of available technology (e.g., surveillance systems, fire alarms, environmental monitoring systems).

Confirmation does not require absolute certainty but must be based on reasonably reliable information indicating that an emergency or dangerous situation exists that involves an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees on campus.

D. Determination of Immediate Threat

Once an emergency is confirmed, authorized personnel will determine:

• Whether the situation poses an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees;
• The scope (localized vs. campus-wide) of the threat; and
• The segment(s) of the campus community that may be affected.

E. Responsible Authorities

The following individuals or offices are authorized to confirm an emergency and initiate the emergency notification process:

• Director/Chief of DPS (or designee);
• On-duty DPS Supervisor;
• Environmental Health & Safety personnel; and
• Other designated University Officials, as outlined in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.

F. Timeliness of Verification

Verification of an emergency will occur as quickly as possible, balancing the need for prompt action with the need for accurate information. The University will not delay issuing an Emergency Notification to confirm all details if there is sufficient information to indicate an immediate threat, unless such notification would compromise efforts to assist a victim or contain, respond to, or mitigate the emergency.

G. Coordination with External Agencies

As necessary, the University will coordinate with local emergency responders to:

• Validate information;
• Avoid conflicting or duplicative messaging; and
• Ensure a unified and effective response.

H. Dissemination

Emergency Notifications are distributed through the AlertUR system, and may include text messages, UR Mobile notifications, email, phone calls, campus alert systems, website postings, or other communication platforms. Adequate follow-up messaging will be provided to the campus community as needed, following the university’s Crisis Communication Plan.

II. Timely Warnings

The University will issue Timely Warnings to the campus community regarding Clery Crimes that are (1) committed on the University’s Clery Geography, (2) reported to CSAs (including DPS) or local police agencies, and (3) considered by the University to represent a serious or continuing threat to students and employees.

DPS is responsible for reviewing reports of crimes and determining whether issuance of a Timely Warnings to the campus community is warranted.  DPS will issue these warnings via email notification in a manner that is timely and that withholds the names and other identifying information of victims, and that will aid in the prevention of similar crimes.  Timely Warnings will include:

1. The nature of the crime;
2. The date, time, and general location of the incident;
3. A suspect description, if available;
4. Safety precautions or prevention tips; and
5. Contact information for reporting additional information

If, in the professional judgment of DPS, issuing a Timely Warning would compromise efforts to address the crime, the notification may be delayed or the information disseminated may be limited. Once the potentially compromising situation has been addressed, the warning will be issued in a timely manner, assuming the serious or continuing threat still exists. The University will never include identifying information about victims.

All available information known at the time will be taken into consideration when evaluating the need for a Timely Warning. Those considerations include, but are not limited to:

• The nature and seriousness of the crime;
• When and where the incident occurred;
• When it was reported;
• The duration of time between the occurrence and the report;
• The relationship between the victim and perpetrator;
• The patterns or trends of other incidents;
• The continuing danger to the campus community; and
• The risk of compromising law enforcement efforts or identifying the victim.

III. Public Safety Advisory

Where providing information to the campus community may help promote safety awareness and prevention, the University may issue Public Safety Advisories to inform the campus community of reported crimes, suspicious activity, or safety concerns that do not meet the criteria for a Timely Warning or Emergency Notification. These notifications are issued via email to the campus community.

Public Safety Advisories are discretionary notifications and may be issued when:

• A crime occurs outside of the University’s Clery Geography but may impact members of the campus community;
• A reported crime does not pose a serious or continuing threat;
• The suspect has been identified or apprehended but the University believes the campus community should be informed; or
• There is a pattern of incidents or suspicious activity that warrants awareness.

A Public Safety Advisory is intended to promote situational awareness and crime prevention and may include:

• A general description of the incident;
• The date and approximate location;
• Relevant safety reminders or precautionary information; and
• Information on how to report additional details.

Public Safety Advisories are informational in nature and are not required notifications under the Clery Act.  Instead, these notifications are used by the University as part of its overall campus safety communication strategy.

The post Clery Notifications appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

Definitions

Annual Security and Fire Safety Report: A report containing statistics of Clery Crimes and certain fire safety statistics for the three most recent calendar years, as well as the University’s statements of policies and procedures required under the Clery Act.

Campus Hazing Transparency Report: A report summarizing findings concerning any student organization established or recognized by the University found to be in violation of the University’s standards of conduct relating to hazing, as that term is defined by the University.

Campus Security Authority (CSA): An individual who meets one of the following definitions: a) campus police or security department personnel; b) any individual who has responsibility for campus security; c) any individual or organization specified by University policy as an individual or organization to which students and employees should report criminal offenses; or d) an official of the University who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities.

Official: Any person who has the authority and duty to take action or respond to a particular issue on behalf of the University.

Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)) is a federal statute that requires colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to comply with various requirements related to safety on campus.

Clery Crimes: Crimes designated as reportable under the Clery Act, which include:

Criminal Offenses

• Murder
• manslaughter (including negligent manslaughter and nonnegligent manslaughter)
• sex offenses (including rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape)
• robbery
• aggravated assault
• burglary
• motor vehicle theft
• arson
• hazing

Hate Crimes – any of the above-mentioned Criminal Offenses and any incidents below that were motivated by bias:

• larceny-theft
• simple assault
• intimidation
• destruction/damage/vandalism of property

Under the Clery Act, the categories of bias include the victim’s actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, and disability.

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Offenses

• domestic violence
• dating violence
• stalking

Weapons, Drug, and Liquor Law Violations – arrests or referrals for campus disciplinary action for illegal weapons possession, drug-related violations, or liquor law violations.

Clery Geography: For purposes of Clery Act reporting and the University’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report, Clery Geography refers to (1) buildings and property that are part of the University’s campus(es); (2) the University’s non-campus buildings and property; and (3) public property within or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the University’s campus(es).  Each of these locations is defined further below:

1. On campus – any building or property owned or controlled by the University within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the University and used by the University in direct support of, or in a manner related to, the University’s educational purposes, including residence halls; or any building or property within this same reasonably contiguous area, that is owned by the University but controlled by another person, is frequently used by students, and supports institutional purposes (such as a food or other retail vendor).
2. Non-campus building or property – any building or property owned or controlled by a student organization that is officially recognized by the University; or any building or property owned or controlled by the University that is used in direct support of, or in relation to, the University’s educational purposes, is frequently used by students, and is not within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the University.
3. Public property – all public property, including thoroughfares, streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities, that is within the campus, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus.
4. Separate campus – Additional location that (a) the University owns or controls, (b) is not reasonably geographically contiguous with the main campus (i.e., River Campus), (c) has an organized program of study, and (d) there is at least one person on-site acting in an administrative capacity. These locations are considered separate campuses for purposes of the University’s Clery Act reporting obligations.

Daily Crime Log: A record of any crime that has occurred within the University’s Clery Geography and that is reported to the University’s Department of Public Safety (“DPS”).  The Daily Crime Log includes, at a minimum, the date the crime was reported, the nature, date, time, and general location of each crime, and the disposition of the complaint (if known). The Daily Crime Log is maintained by DPS.

Emergency Notification: Notification to the campus community (or an appropriate segment or segments of the campus community) upon confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees occurring on campus.

Fire: Any instance of open flame or other burning in a place not intended to contain the burning or in an uncontrolled manner.

Fire Log: A record of any fire that occurred in an on-campus student housing facility, logged by the date that the fire was reported.  The Fire Log includes the nature, date, time, and general location of each fire, and is maintained by the University’s Environmental Health & Safety (“EHS”).

Timely Warning: Notification to the campus community of a Clery Crime(s) that occurs on the University’s Clery Geography that is reported to CSAs or local police agencies and is considered by the University to represent a serious or continuing threat to the safety of students and employees.

Scope/Compliance

This policy applies broadly to the entire University community, including faculty, staff, and students; post-doctoral appointees, contractors, vendors, and consultants when they are doing business with or on behalf of the University; individuals who perform services for the University as volunteers; and visitors, guests, or other individuals who are participating in the University’s education program or activities.

Compliance with this policy is required. Violations may result in disciplinary, corrective, or administrative action consistent with the University’s Code of Conduct and applicable policies, up to and including termination of employment, revocation of access or privileges, termination of agreements or relationships with the University, or other appropriate action.

Policy Details

1. On an annual basis, the University will:
   1. Request and collect reports of Clery Crimes made to CSAs and other law enforcement agencies.
   2. Compile statistics of reported Clery Crimes reported to CSAs or other law enforcement that were alleged to have occurred on the University’s Clery Geography.
   3. Submit Clery Crime and fire statistics to the U.S. Department of Education.
   4. By the publication deadline established by the U.S. Department of Education, publish the University’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report that covers each of the University’s separate campuses. The report will contain the following:
      1. Safety and security-related policy statements (including emergency notification and evacuation procedures);
      2. Clery Crime statistics;
      3. Fire statistics for each on-campus student housing facility;
      4. Fire safety information related to on-campus student housing facilities;
      5. Procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking;
      6. Missing student notification procedures that pertain to students residing in on-campus student housing facilities; and,
      7. Policies, procedures, and laws relating to hazing.
   5. By the publication deadline established by the U.S. Department of Education, distribute notice of the availability of the University’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report to all current students and employees.
   6. Make available the Annual Security and Fire Safety Report to prospective students and employees.
   7. Provide primary prevention and awareness programs and ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns to promote awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
   8. Provide prevention and awareness programs related to hazing that include research-informed campus-wide prevention programs designed to reach students, staff, and faculty.
   9. Test the emergency response and evacuation procedures. In conjunction with the yearly test, the University will publicize its emergency response and evacuation procedures. This test may be announced or unannounced.
2. At least twice a year, the University will:
   1. Update the Campus Hazing Transparency Report to include each incident involving a student organization for which a finding of responsibility is issued relating to a hazing violation, if an update is required.
3. On an ongoing basis, the University will:
   1. Identify and provide mandatory annual training to CSAs concerning their reporting obligations.
   2. Maintain missing student emergency contact notification procedures for students residing in on-campus student housing.
   3. Maintain emergency response and evacuation procedures.
   4. Issue Timely Warnings for Clery Crimes that occur on the University’s Clery Geography that represent a serious or continuing threat to students and employees.
   5. Issue Emergency Notifications upon confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or employees occurring on the campus.
   6. Maintain a daily crime log, open to public inspection.
4. The University will meet other operational and reporting requirements as may be necessary under the Clery Act as stipulated by the Department of Education.

The post Clery Act Compliance appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

This Policy sets forth the University’s commitment to reporting Gifts, Contracts, and financial support received from Foreign Sources, as required by Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, and Section 207-a of the New York State Education Law. This Policy also describes the responsibilities of Responsible Offices to report information regarding Gifts, Contracts, and financial support received from Foreign Sources to the University Controller’s Office and describes the authority and responsibilities of the University Controller’s Office in the reporting process.

Definitions

• “Contract” means any arrangement for the acquisition, by purchase, lease or barter, of property or services by the Foreign Source for the direct benefit or use of either of the parties. (20 U.S. Code § 1011f)
• “Foreign Country of Concern” is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 19221(a)(1), and means the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, or any other country deemed to be a country of concern as determined by the Secretary of State. (FFDR Definitions)
• “Foreign Source” means any one of (A) a foreign government, including an agency of a foreign government; (B) a legal entity, governmental or otherwise, created solely under the laws of a foreign state or states; (C) an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States or a trust territory or protectorate thereof; and (D) an agent, including a subsidiary or affiliate of a foreign legal entity, acting on behalf of a foreign source. (20 U.S. Code § 1011f)
• “Gift” means any gift of money or property to the University. (20 U.S. Code § 1011f)
• “Responsible Office” means any office, unit, or department of the University that may enter into Gifts or Contracts with or receives financial support from Foreign Sources on behalf of the University, including the following: (1) the Office of Advancement, (2) the Office of Research and Project Administration, (3) UR Ventures, (4) the Office for Global Engagement, (5) Office of the Bursar, (6) the Divisional Finance Officers for each University School or Unit, including the Eastman Institute for Oral Health, Strong Memorial Hospital, the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ Medical Faculty Group, Health Sciences Division, the Memorial Art Gallery, and the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (7) any other office, unit, or department identified by the University Controller’s Office as having authority to enter into Gifts or Contracts with or receive support from a Foreign Source on behalf of the University.
• “University School” includes the following: School of Arts & Sciences, Hajim School of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Eastman School of Music, School of Medicine & Dentistry (effective 1/1/2027, School of Medicine, School of Dentistry), School of Nursing & Health Sciences, Simon Business School, Warner School of Education & Human Development.

Scope and compliance

This policy applies to the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ (excluding affiliates).

Section 117 reporting is required by institutions that (1) offer a bachelor’s degree or higher (or offer a transfer program of at least two years), (2) are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, and (3) receive federal financial assistance.

CHIPS and Science Act reporting is required by institutions of higher education that are direct recipients of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding.

NYS section 207-A reporting is required by every institution authorized by the legislature or by the regents of the university of the state of New York to confer academic degrees in NY.

Policy details

Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. § 1011f), requires the University to report information regarding Gifts and Contracts, the value of which is $250,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other Gifts from or Contracts with that Foreign Source within a calendar year, to the U.S. Department of Education. The reports are due twice per year (on January 31, and July 31).

In accordance with the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (42 U.S.C. § 19040), the University must annually report to the National Science Foundation all current financial support, the value of which is $50,000 or more, including Gifts and Contracts, received directly or indirectly from a Foreign Source which is associated with a Foreign Country of Concern.

Under Section 207-a of the New York State Education Law, the University is required to annually disclose to the New York State Department of Education information regarding any Gifts and Contracts with a combined total of $100,000 or more received within a calendar year from a Foreign Source. The required report is due on July 31st of each year.

Failure to comply with federal or state reporting requirements could result in civil action and assessment of costs against the University by government agencies.

Each Responsible Office is required to collect and record certain information regarding the Gifts, Contracts, and financial support from Foreign Sources that it processes, and to report such information to the University Controller. Specific information requirements and reporting deadlines that Responsible Offices are required to meet are described in separate memorandums or guidance issued by the University Controller to Responsible Offices.

As part of their reporting to the University Controller, Responsible Offices must provide the value of each Gift, Contract, or financial support received from a Foreign Source to the University Controller. Gifts are valued and reported on the basis of the amount the University actually receives from the donor in the relevant reporting period. For Contracts, the University must report the total value of the Contract over its entire life in the year in which the University entered into the Contract. If the amount of a Contract cannot be determined at the time of execution, the Responsible Office must establish a good faith estimate of the Contract value using a reasonable valuation methodology based on available information. Each Responsible Office must provide the required information for Gifts, Contracts, and financial support received from Foreign Sources regardless of the amount of the Gift, Contract, or form of support.

Responsible Offices must conduct reasonable due diligence when they process a Gift, Contract, or financial support to determine whether the Gift, Contract, or financial support is from or with a Foreign Source. The country to which a Gift, Contract, or financial support is attributable is the country of citizenship, or if unknown, the principal residence for a Foreign Source who is a natural person, and the country of incorporation, or if unknown, the principal place of business, for a Foreign Source which is a legal entity. Reasonable due diligence may vary: more diligence may be appropriate for transactions with a new Foreign Source, less diligence may be necessary for transactions with a repeat Foreign Source. Responsible Offices may determine whether a source is a Foreign Source by gathering information directly from a party or through independent research.

Before accepting a Gift to the University from a Foreign Source, Responsible Offices must adhere to all applicable Gift review and acceptance authority policies and procedures of the University.

The University Controller’s Office is responsible for maintaining a list of Responsible Offices that are known to process Gifts, Contracts, and financial support received from Foreign Sources, and to require Responsible Offices to submit information to the University’s Controller Office to support its reporting responsibilities.

The University Controller’s Office is responsible for communicating to Responsible Offices the information required to be reported to the University Controller.

The University Controller’s Office is responsible for reviewing the relevant information provided by each Responsible Office to determine if the University has met an applicable reporting threshold.

The University Controller’s Office is the authorized University office to report Gifts, Contracts, and financial support received from Foreign Sources to applicable federal and state agencies and ensures the timely filing of such reports.

Responsible offices

The following table describes the Gifts, Contracts, and financial support from Foreign Sources that each Responsible Office identified above is responsible for reporting on:

The post Reporting Foreign Gifts and Contracts appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

The purpose of this policy is to define the circumstances under which honoraria may be paid.

II. To Whom the Policy Applies

This policy applies to all honorarium payments.

III. Policy Statement

Honorarium

For purposes of this policy, an honorarium is a one-time, discretionary payment made by the University as a gesture of goodwill or appreciation for an individual’s voluntary contribution to a University-sponsored activity. Example activities for which an honorarium may be paid include the following:

• A special one-time lecture for which the individual has no responsibility for grading or taking class attendance
• One-time guest speaker for an educational event, seminar, workshop, or other similar function
• Appearance at an event by a recognized authority in a particular field of endeavor

To qualify as an honorarium, there should be no specific deliverable requested or expected from the individual.

Honoraria may not be paid to:

• a current employee of the University (whether that employee is permanent, temporary, part-time, or full-time)
• a current University student
• a business

The University does not make charitable contributions to organizations in lieu of an honorarium payment.

An honorarium is a token of appreciation and not a contractual arrangement to pay for services rendered. Accordingly, it cannot be:

• based on a negotiated amount between the individual providing services and the University. Any verbal or written negotiated agreement in which the University will be obligated to pay for services must be made in accordance with University procurement policies and procedures (i.e., Independent Contractors or consultants).
• provided to individuals who make significant instructional contributions to a course.
• paid over several months or as a reoccurring payment (e.g., to visiting scholars).
• for an amount exceeding $5,000. Honorarium payments exceeding $5,000 must have written advance approval from the President, Provost, Dean, EVP for Finance and Administration/CFO, URMC CEO or CFO.

Eligibility & Visa Requirements

Honoraria may be paid to foreign nationals in accordance with their visa classification.

• Prohibited Visa Categories:
  • H‑1B, TN, O visas: Visitors on these visas not sponsored by the University may NOT receive honoraria or service payments. In such cases, payment may need to be arranged through the visitor’s home institution.
• J‑1 Visa Holders:
  • If the visitor is on a J‑1 visa not sponsored by the University, they must provide written authorization from their J‑1 program sponsor granting permission to receive payment. The authorization must be submitted with the payment request.
  • Sample authorization from J-1 visa holder’s sponsoring institution, on their letterhead:(Payee) has permission to receive payment from the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝. The activity they will be involved with at the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ is directly related to their principal activity, is indeed incidental, and will not delay completion of their program.

• B‑1/B‑2 or Visa Waiver Program (WB/WT):
  • Eligible for honoraria under the 9/5/6 rule:
    1. Stay no more than 9 days at the host institution,
    2. No more than 5 honoraria payments from U.S. sources in the previous 6 months.
  • A completed must be submitted with the payment request.

Tax Withholding & Reporting

U.S. Citizens, Permanent Residents, and Resident Aliens for Tax Purposes

An honorarium is considered taxable income and is reportable to the IRS on Form 1099-NEC if the total reportable payments to the honoraria recipient meets the IRS reporting threshold. U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and resident aliens for tax purposes who receive honoraria payments from the University must provide a complete and signed Form W-9.

Non-Permanent Residents and Non-resident Aliens for Tax Purposes

All honoraria payments made to a non-permanent resident or foreign individual are subject to income tax withholding, unless specifically exempted by either U.S. tax law or an income tax treaty. Payments not exempt from withholding are generally subject to 30% federal income tax withholding in accordance with IRS regulations. To claim an exemption from tax withholding under an income tax treaty, the payee must submit Form 8233 along with any required supporting documents to Candex.

Prior to agreeing to pay an honorarium payment to a non-permanent resident, the payment requester must confirm that the individual is present in the United States under an immigration status that allows them to perform an activity for which a payment may be made, as described above under “Eligibility & Visa Requirements.”

Travel Reimbursements Paid to an Honorarium Recipient

Travel reimbursements paid to an honorarium recipient are non-taxable when documented and paid in accordance with the University’s .

Documentation & Process

See for detailed information regarding documentation requirements and procedure information.

• All Honoraria payments are paid through Candex.
• Supporting documentation to be submitted with the Honorarium request includes:
  • Event Flyer, Event agenda, or other materials that describe the event and the recipient’s participation in the University event.
  • If the payee is a visa holder, the appropriate visa authorization, as described in the Visa Requirements section, must be attached.

The post Honorarium Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

International travel is an integral part of the academic, research, and healthcare mission of the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝, and ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ broadly encourages and supports international travel by its faculty, staff, and students in support of that mission—these opportunities offer valuable learning experiences for students and provide faculty members with mechanisms to enhance their research and teaching.

Objective

The goal of this policy is to help ensure the health, safety, and security of members of the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ community undertaking international travel consistent with the broad activity and intellectual exploration inherent to the international reach of a research university. It seeks to enable consistent planning, operation, and response among widely varied academic units and activities; provide for expeditious and consistent institutional support for ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ global activities in the event of crisis; reduce risk to travelers and the institution; and connect ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ travelers with appropriate resources and support.

Scope

This policy applies to all ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or -supported travel; it does not apply to non-ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ or personal travel. This policy does not cover all requirements for international employment or international student programs[2]. In additional to compliance with this policy, all international programs involving student travel abroad must conform to the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ Education Abroad Program Policy.

Definitions

• Foreign Country of Concern: China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and any other country determined to be a country of concern by the Secretary of State.
• International Travel Review Committee (ITRC): The ITRC is a standing committee advisory to the Provost on matters related to international travel, health, and safety of all ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ faculty, staff, students, and post-docs traveling or studying abroad on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-affiliated programs or business. Responsibilities also include policy review, travel proposal review, and other risk-related recommendations.
• High-Risk Destinations: Countries under current U.S. Department of State Travel Advisory levels 3 (“Reconsider Travel”) and 4 (“Do Not Travel”), or regions, provinces, and cities that contain the language “Reconsider Travel” or “Do Not Travel” within the narrative of any level 1–4 Travel Advisory. Locations under a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designation of “Warning Level 3, Avoid Nonessential Travel” are also considered high-risk. The ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ may apply the designation “high risk” to locations that pose a specific health, safety, or security concern as indicated by other sources, such as our insurers or intelligence providers.
• International Travel: Travel undertaken outside the 50 United States.[1]
• Sanctioned Countries: Countries subject to comprehensive United States trade or economic restrictions administered by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the following regions of Ukraine: Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
• Sponsoring Unit: A department, school, college, center, office or other ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ entity that organizes, approves, or supports an overseas activity.
• Travel Registration: ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ record (completed by traveler or traveler proxy prior to departure) of traveler name, date, destination, itinerary, and contact information.
• ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-Sponsored or Supported Travel: Academic or business travel undertaken by ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ Faculty, Staff, or Students and, in the case of students and medical residents, developed, funded, or administered by the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝, or in the case of faculty/staff, related to the individual’s role at ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ or developed, funded, or administered by ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ (including travel pursuant to a funded research project). Such travel may include, but is not limited to: teaching, research, conferences, administrative work, for-credit study, internships, field studies, service learning, volunteer or work programs and other experiential learning, performances, athletic competitions, and trips abroad in connection with student organizations recognized by any ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ academic or administrative unit, and students in absentia.
• Waiver of Liability: A legal document signed by a person participating in an activity, acknowledging that the individual is aware of the risks associated with participation in the activity and agreeing to waive any claims against the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ arising from any loss or injury suffered while participating in the activity.

Travel Authorization

Individuals traveling internationally on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored programs or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported travel must conform to all pre-travel requirements, including all appropriate approvals and authorizations. General requirements are summarized below, and all travelers are responsible for ensuring compliance with additional policies implemented within their department. ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ personnel must comply with policy items that align to the capacity in which they are traveling (e.g., a staff member who is also enrolled as a student and is traveling as part of a credit-bearing course must comply with all requirements for student travel.)

• All Students: Undergraduate and Graduate Students (including Medical Students): Students must receive approval from their schools and departments and meet all requirements set forth by the Center for Education Abroad (CEA) and the Office for Global Engagement. Students participating in: Rochester Programs, Direct Enroll Programs, Exchange Programs, Third-party Programs, Partner Programs, Non-partner programs, or non-credit experiences should consult the Center for Education Abroad to ensure all requirements are met.
• Postgraduate Medical Trainees: Travel by medical residents and fellows is permitted when approved by the .
• Faculty and Staff (including fellows and post-docs): Faculty and staff traveling abroad, without students, to locations that generally do not pose elevated levels of risk (e.g., not designated as high-risk, not sanctioned by U.S. government, etc.) are not required to seek authorization through Global Engagement.

  Faculty and staff traveling abroad as a leader, organizer, or facilitator for a student (or group of students) must contact CEA for a formal review of the planned program. Program review ensures that all programs are developed in alignment with CEA policy and guidelines, including industry standards and best practices.

Export Control Matters

Individuals traveling internationally on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored programs or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported travel must comply with the following notifications for export control compliance purposes at least five (5) business days before undertaking the travel.

• All Students (including Undergraduate, Graduate Students, and Medical Students), Postgraduate Medical Trainees, Faculty and Staff (including fellows and post-docs): Students, medical residents and fellows, and faculty and staff traveling on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored programs or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported travel must notify the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Export Control Officer before traveling (1) to a Sanctioned Country, (2) internationally with “technical data” controlled by the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR), or (3) traveling to a Foreign Country of Concern with a ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-owned electronic device (other than a “loaner” device furnished by the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝).

Travel Registration

Travel registration enables the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ to provide resources and support to travelers prior to, and during, international travel. Timely registration is also critical for ensuring enrollment in ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-provided travel insurance and ensuring compliance with evolving federal research security mandates. Failure to register travel could result in ineligibility for university coverages, leaving a traveler without critical support, such as financial reimbursement for medical emergencies or other forms of assistance during a medical or security emergency while abroad.

Registration does not constitute a request for travel approval, and completion of the registration process does not constitute ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ approval.

In addition to the travel resources available through the registration process, travelers are strongly encouraged to reach out to ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ IT directly and discuss additional resources such as the use of loaner devices while abroad. Many travelers may be eligible to use a loaner device, which can lessen security risks.

• All Students: Undergraduate and Graduate Students (including Medical Students): All ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ students traveling abroad on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported travel are required to register their trip. Registration should be completed as early as possible and no less than 30 days prior to departure.  This includes travel that is developed, funded, administered, or otherwise supported by the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝.

  The ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ provides a secure for students to register their travel plans when they are going on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported travel. Students who have applied to and been accepted to a program in the are already registered in the EA Portal with an appropriate program and the Student Travel Form is not required.

  Travel registration for students participating in the following specialty, experiential, or service learning abroad including (but not limited to): Artistic Performance, Athletic Team Trip, Business, Work, Conference, Internship, and Research are required to complete the Student Travel Proposal Form.

• Postgraduate Medical Trainees: Medical residents and fellows are required to register their travel with the Office for Global Engagement.
• Staff: Staff are required to register their travel with the  (via web-based portal) before undertaking any ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported international travel.
• Faculty (including fellows and postdocs): Faculty are required to register their travel with the  (via web-based portal) before undertaking any ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported international travel.

High-Risk Travel

• All Students: Undergraduate and Graduate Students (including Medical Students): Students must submit a travel permission request form to travelsecurity@rochester.edu for required review and approval by the International Travel Review Committee (ITRC). Standing approvals for frequent or recurring travel may be issued at the discretion of the ITRC.

  All high-risk travel requests should be submitted as far in advance as possible and at least two months prior to proposed dates of travel.

• Postgraduate Medical Trainees: Travel to high-risk locations by medical residents and fellows is permitted only when approved by the Graduate Medical Education Office.
• Faculty & Staff (including fellows and postdocs): Faculty and staff travel to high-risk destinations may be reviewed for health, safety, or other risk management purposes. Travelers are encouraged to seek advice from the  early in the planning process to develop plans to help mitigate risks.

Minors

Travel for ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ programs involving the participation of minors must comply with ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Policy on Minimum Standards for Programs for Minors and Children and human resources policy for the Employment of Minors.

Waivers of Liability

Each Sponsoring Unit must ensure that all participants sign a Waiver of Liability form prior to departure on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported international travel to high-risk destinations.

In each case, the form used must be a standard ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ form and must be tailored to the specific program and risks. Signed forms must be kept on file by the Sponsoring Unit for four years from the end of the trip or program.

Insurance and Travel Assistance

All individuals traveling on ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ business or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported international travel are eligible for international travel insurance and assistance coverage, fully sponsored by ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝. Details of coverage are available through Global Engagement’s website or may be obtained by contacting Global Engagement at travelsecurity@rochester.edu.

International travel insurance plans are not intended to replace primary healthcare coverages. Students undertaking ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-sponsored or ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported international travel must possess health insurance that meets minimum standards, and faculty and staff are strongly encouraged to review their personal health insurance coverage.

Note: Exclusions to insurance coverages apply. Some activities, especially those that are not organized by the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ or the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s partners, may not be covered. Common exclusions include but are not limited to: willful criminal activity, unlicensed operation of motor vehicle, skiing, skydiving, other sporting activities, etc. All travelers are responsible for understanding limitations of coverage and must individually procure any additional necessary coverages.

Emergency Evacuation and Trip Cancellation

If the safety or security of a location changes after the traveler receives permission to travel, the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ may revoke the approval or require travelers to meet additional stipulations or travel requirements.

In cases of a serious emergency or other event that raises a serious safety or health concern while a traveler is abroad, the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ may require travelers to return early or adjust their travel itinerary. In such scenarios, ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ will evaluate specific travel situations and protocols regarding travel evacuation or cancellation with any affected stakeholders.

During all international travel, and especially in emergency situations, travelers must follow directives and guidelines from local authorities. Travelers are also expected to comply with any entry restrictions implemented by the United States government, state governments, or local authorities upon their return from abroad.

Reporting of Incidents Abroad

Incidents, including accidents, injuries, illnesses, mental-health-related issues, criminal activity and the like, that impact the health or safety of any ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ person during international travel, must be reported to the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ Public Safety or the Director of Global Travel Risk Management.

If a student is seeking assistance related to an incident of sexual misconduct and does not want to make a formal report about the incident to the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝, the student should be referred to options for anonymous reporting on the Sexual Misconduct and Title IX website here.

Student Conduct

Student conduct while on international travel is subject to existing . Disciplinary procedures followed will be fundamentally fair and consistent with the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s procedures to the maximum extent feasible under the circumstances.

[1] U.S. Territories are considered outside the 50 United States.

[2] Additional resources are located in Appendix I

The post International Travel Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

The ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ supports the creation and development of student programs abroad and aims to encourage and enable students, faculty, and staff to participate in international experiences. These opportunities are designed to offer valuable experiences for participants to further their academic objectives and enrich their overall experience at ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝.

Reason for Policy

Student experiences abroad vary widely in style, size, and complexity. This policy serves to standardize the development of programs and ensure compliance with all appropriate rules and regulations. Adherence to this policy and the accompanying rules and regulations will enable the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ to ensure that experiences abroad meet education, health, and safety standards, meet internal and external reporting requirements, and comply with applicable ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ policies.

Scope

This policy applies to all ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ faculty, staff, undergraduate and graduate students, schools, units/departments, and affiliated institutions developing or creating an international program(s) involving ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ students. This policy includes, but is not limited to: enrollment in courses, experiential learning, internships, service learning, and other learning activities, which occur outside of the U.S^[1].

Examples include but are not limited to:

• A faculty or staff member leading or organizing a program with a ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ student or group of students outside of the U.S. may include research, service learning, experiential learning, internships, or non-credit.
• A faculty or staff member accompanying students on a research program abroad funded by a national grant (e.g. NSF grant).
• A faculty or staff member coordinating an international exchange where students take electives at a partner or host university.
• A faculty or staff member creating a course with a component—or part of a component—that is conducted outside of the U.S. (e.g. spring break component of a course taught outside the U.S.).
• A faculty or staff member looking to create a new partnership with a university, college, or non-profit educational organization outside of the U.S.
• A coach organizing or leading a global trip abroad for a competition and/or cultural excursion.
• A student leader organizing an experience outside of the United States as part of their organization, club, or extra-curricular group.

This policy does not apply to programs that are developed, created, or otherwise administered by non-ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ third party organizations.

Program Approval

All ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported student programs abroad must be vetted and approved by the appropriate department, Center for Education Abroad (CEA), and dean of school. Programs to high-risk destinations, or programs that involve activities determined to be high-risk, will be subject to additional review by the International Travel Review Committee.

Program Agreements

All faculty or staff are required to consult with the Center for Education Abroad (CEA) prior to the development of any travel arrangements or formal agreements (such as Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or contracts), which involve taking students abroad in any capacity. All agreements for international activities must comport with the University’s Signature Authority Policy.

Training

All trip leaders and program participants are required to complete all relevant pre-departure training. This may include, but is not limited to:

• An in-person health and safety orientation session;
• The completion of designated training modules in MyPath; and
• Formal acknowledgment—via signature or digital sign-off— that faculty expectations, as determined by CEA have been read and understood​.

Program Guests

Guests such as spouses or other family members may, in limited circumstances, be permitted to accompany a faculty or staff member on a ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported program and must be approved during program development. Guests shall have no formal roles or responsibilities regarding the operations of the program, and interaction with the program participants should be limited to pre-approved activities.

Relevant Standards and Policies

ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝-supported student programs abroad must comply with all applicable ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ policies and procedures related to international programs or travel, including the International Travel Policy^[2].  This policy has been developed within the framework of the standards of industry practice.

[1] Per International Travel Policy, “international travel is defined as travel undertaken outside of the 50 United States. U.S. territories are considered international.

[2] International Travel Policy lists additional important references, such as relevant Human Resources policies.

The post Education Abroad Program Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

This ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ (“University”) Policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct is intended to meet regulatory requirements, and to provide a fair, transparent, and understandable process for addressing concerns about the conduct of research. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) and the Office of Research Integrity, Stewardship & Ethics (ORISE) serve as neutral resources for faculty, trainees, and staff, and are available to explain and support the process, answer questions, and help ensure procedural fairness for all parties in implementing this policy.

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of all research misconduct proceedings. To the extent possible, research misconduct proceedings are conducted in a manner intended to minimize disruption to ongoing research. Thus, it is generally anticipated that research activities will continue while a research misconduct proceeding is underway. If, however, serious irregularities are identified during the process- such as non-compliance with regulatory, security or institutional requirements, credible concerns about harassment or unsafe conditions, financial malfeasance, or other serious violations- the University may temporarily modify or pause affected activities to protect and safeguard research participants, personnel, data, and University or sponsor funds and resources.

In sum, this policy and the procedures derived from it are designed to safeguard both the integrity of the research enterprise and the rights of those individuals involved in, or affected by, allegations of research misconduct while ensuring that such allegations are evaluated in a fair, confidential and timely manner.

General Policy Principles

The University is committed to maintaining an active culture of research integrity and upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor in research, where all individuals engaged in research meet the highest ethical and scientific standards, while protecting the academic freedom and reputation of all members of the University’s research community. The University is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible and ethical conduct of research. As such, the University, does not tolerate research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct in accord with this Policy and applicable law. The purpose of this Policy is to ensure that all members of the University community understand their rights and responsibilities, and the University’s standardized method of addressing allegations of conduct that falls short of our ethical and scientific obligations in a clear, transparent manner.

All institutional members are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each institutional member is responsible for contributing to a University culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible and ethical conduct of research and, in accord with the terms of this Policy, a respondent will be found to have engaged in misconduct only by the respondent’s admission or upon a determination by the preponderance of the evidence.

The University strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, supports all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and seeks to rectify the research record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.

Research misconduct is contrary to the interests of the University, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the appropriate use of public and private funds. Both the University and its institutional members have a duty to protect those funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all research conducted on behalf of the University.

The University is responsible for ensuring that this policy and the procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct meet all applicable sponsor requirements and local, state, or federal regulations. These include but are not limited to the (42 CFR Parts 50 & 93, “the PHS regulation”), and the NSF Research Misconduct Policy (42 CFR Part 689). ORISE will maintain this policy and its associated procedures, inform all institutional members about them, and make them publicly available.

For definitions of terms used in this section and elsewhere, see the Definitions section.

Scope and Applicability

This policy outlines the steps to be taken in response to an allegation of research misconduct involving any individual reviewing, proposing, performing, or reporting research or scholarly work at the University, regardless of the source of funding. It describes an objective examination of the facts, protection of individual rights, and integration with other relevant review procedures. Further, additional procedures beyond those outlined in this policy may be implemented to comply with the procedural, reporting, and other requirements of external sponsors.

The conduct of proceedings under this policy shall be overseen by the University Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”). Where the alleged matters occurred in part at the University, and in part at another institution, the RIO shall coordinate with the appropriate personnel at the other institution on any review of the allegations, and where the alleged matters are externally funded, the RIO may consult with funding agencies, the Office of Research Project Administration (ORPA) and/or other relevant parties to mutually define a process for a thorough, competent, objective, and fair proceeding, with confidentiality in mind.

To the extent that the subject matter of the allegation(s) falls within the scope of another University policy or falls under the jurisdiction of another University office or committee, such as, but not limited to, the Office for Human Subject Protection (OHSP), University Committee on Animal Resources (UCAR), or the Conflict of Interest Committee (COIC), such matters may be referred at any time to those committees for consultation and/or management.

This policy and its associated procedures apply only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date the allegation is received, subject to the following exceptions:

• If the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent, the six-year time limitation does not apply (“subsequent use exception”).
• If after a thorough assessment of relevant materials the RIO or RIO Designee determines that the alleged misconduct is not subject to the exception, the RIO or RIO Designee will document their determination. The University will retain this documentation for seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any pertinent agency proceeding, whichever is later.
• The six-year time limitation also does not apply if a pertinent agency or the University, following consultation with such agency, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

These policies and procedures do not supersede or establish an alternative to applicable laws and regulations for handling research misconduct. In case of any conflict between this document and applicable laws and requirements, the RIO in concert with the University Office of Counsel (OGC), if appropriate, will make a determination as to which laws and regulations will prevail.

Definitions

• Accepted practices of the relevant research community. Accepted practices of the relevant research community refer to the established norms, standards, and procedures recognized and followed by researchers within a specific field of study, including professional codes or norms set forth by external funders, professional societies, or research organizations within that field.
• Administrative record. The administrative record comprises: the institutional record; any information provided by the respondent to a relevant oversight agency related to a research misconduct proceeding, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings or correspondence between the respondent and such agency; any additional information provided to such agency while the case is pending; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by the oversight agency.
• Allegation. Allegation means disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication when brought directly to the attention of an institutional or pertinent external agency official.
• Assessment. Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct and within the scope of this policy; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.
• Complainant. Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
• Evidence. Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.
• Fabrication. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification. Falsification means 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.
• Good faith. (a) Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, 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 made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. (b) Good faith as applied to an institutional or committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities under applicable law. An institutional or committee member will not be deemed to be acting in good faith if their acts or omissions during the research misconduct proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
• Inquiry. Inquiry means preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether the allegation is credible, specific, and may have substance to warrant an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation.
• Institution. Institution means the ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝, including all of its schools, colleges, academic departments, research centers, institutes, and administrative units, as well as any individual or entity acting on its behalf in the conduct of research, research training, or related scholarly activities. This also includes any individual who applies for or receives external support for any research or scholarly activity or program on behalf of the institution.
• Institutional Deciding Official. Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) means the University official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and memorializes any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.
• Institutional member. Institutional member and members means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with the University. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.
• Institutional record. The institutional record comprises: (a) The non-legally privileged records that the University compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the University did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to: (1) documentation of the assessment as required by applicable regulations; (2) if an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the University and the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by applicable regulations; (3) if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted pursuant to applicable regulations, and information the respondent provided to the University; (4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official; (5) the complete record of any other relevant institutional proceedings; (b) a single index listing all of items (1) through (5) above; (c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
• Intentionally. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
• Investigation. Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria of and follows the documented procedures of this policy.
• Knowingly. To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.
• Plagiarism. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or authorship credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of research misconduct and will be handled among authors in accordance with applicable publication criteria and University Authorship Guidelines and with assistance of appropriate University offices as needed.
• Preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.
• Recklessly. To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
• Research. Research in general means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms.
• Research Integrity Officer. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the University’s written policy and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.
• Research Integrity Officer Designee (RIO Designee): An impartial individual appointed by the RIO to coordinate specific tasks in a research misconduct proceeding (e.g., intake, assessment, sequestration logistics, record-keeping, communications, timeline tracking) under the RIO’s direction. The designee does not serve as the RIO and does not make material determinations or sign official actions; final authority remains with the RIO.
• Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
• Research misconduct proceeding. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct addressed under this Policy, and as applicable, federal agency processes.
• Research record. Research record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the research record include, but are not limited to: research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.
• Respondent. Respondent means the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.
• Retaliation. Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a complainant, witness, or committee member by an institution or one of its members in response to (a) a good faith allegation of research misconduct, or (b) good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities

Institution

ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s General Responsibilities

The University will, to the extent possible and as allowed by law, limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know, inform all institutional members about this policy and procedures, and make this policy and procedures publicly available. After the Institutional Deciding Official’s final determination, the limitation of disclosure to those who “need-to-know” may be reconsidered in light of the outcome of the proceeding. Any disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses after the proceedings have concluded will be made only as required or permitted by applicable law and University policy. The University will respond to each allegation of research misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to their providing information, research records, and other evidence.

The University will cooperate with any pertinent agency with ultimate authority over the research misconduct proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deficiencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if directed by such agency and assist in administering and enforcing any administrative actions imposed on institutional members. The University may also take steps to correct published data as appropriate or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.

ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Responsibilities During and After a Research Misconduct Proceeding

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, the University will maintain confidentiality for any records or evidence from which research participants might be identified and will limit disclosure to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. Before or at the time of notifying the respondent of the allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant, the University will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence and sequester them securely. As appropriate, the University will make reasonable efforts to ensure respondent’s research is minimally impacted throughout the proceeding. The University will ensure that the institutional record contains all required elements, i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, assessment documentation, and inquiry and/or investigation reports. Upon completion of the inquiry, the University will provide any relevant funding or oversight agency with the required documentation and add it to the institutional record. The institution will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered research records and other evidence in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the institutional and/or agency proceedings.

The University will provide information related to the alleged research misconduct and proceedings to relevant funding or oversight agencies upon request and transfer custody or provide copies of the institutional record or any component of it and any sequestered evidence, regardless of whether the evidence is included in the institutional record. Additionally, the University will promptly notify such agency of any special circumstances that may arise.

Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while the University is conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited to those who need to know, which the University will determine consistently with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.

The University has the responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect any individual involved in conducting or reviewing the proceeding from retaliation.

ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Responsibilities to the Complainant(s)

The University will provide confidentiality consistent with applicable laws for all complainants in a research misconduct proceeding. The University will also take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant(s). The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants and to protect these individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or other institutional members. If the University chooses to notify one complainant of the inquiry results in a case, all complainants will be notified by the University, to the extent possible.

ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Responsibilities to the Respondent(s)

As with complainants, the University will provide confidentiality consistent with applicable laws to all respondents in a research misconduct proceeding. The University will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations being made against them. The University will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent. Respondents and witnesses may have a support person of their choosing, who is not otherwise a party or a witness, present during any part of their participation in the process. Such persons are permitted to provide support for the Respondent or witness but may not speak on their behalf. Support persons may not intervene or interfere with an interview or any aspect of the proceeding. When appropriate, the University will give the respondent(s) copies of or reasonable supervised access to the sequestered research records. The University will notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted, provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report, and attach the respondent’s comments to the final inquiry report. If an investigation is commenced, the University will notify the respondent, provide written notice of any additional allegations raised against them not previously addressed by the inquiry report, and will allow the respondent(s) an opportunity to review the witness transcripts with redactions, as appropriate to protect witness identity. The University will give the respondent(s) an opportunity to read and comment on the draft investigation report and any information or allegations added to the institutional record. The University will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.

The University will bear the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for making a finding of research misconduct. The University will make all reasonable, practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of respondents against whom no finding of research misconduct is made. The ability of respondents to continue their research, if impacted, may depend on other University policies.

ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Responsibilities to Committee Members

The University will ensure that a committee or person acting on the University’s behalf conducts research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and applicable regulations. The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith committee members and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝â€™s Responsibilities to the Witness[es]

The University will maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible for all witnesses. The University will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the witnesses. The University will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

Research Integrity Officer

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering this policy and the procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with applicable laws. The same individual will not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Official and the RIO. In certain cases, the RIO may conduct an inquiry in lieu of an inquiry committee, and, if needed, the RIO (or inquiry committee) may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry. When subject matter experts are involved, the University will take precautions to ensure that individuals do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts and that confidentiality is maintained.

The RIO may, when necessary to ensure continuity and appropriate expertise, appoint another qualified individual to perform one or more RIO responsibilities under the Associate Vice President for Research Integrity’s oversight. If the RIO has an unresolved conflict, the Institutional Deciding Official will appoint a qualified alternative RIO, who is free from unresolved conflicts, for the proceeding.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or RIO Designee will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct and within the scope of this policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation. If the RIO or RIO Designee determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence per relevant regulations, and promptly initiate the inquiry. If the RIO or RIO Designee determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, they will prepare sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a subsequent review regarding the University’s decision not to conduct an inquiry. The University will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provide them to relevant oversight agencies upon request. The RIO, in coordination with the Office of Counsel, ensures the University cooperates fully with relevant oversight agencies during any oversight reviews and administrative hearings or appeals.

Complainant

The complainant is the person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. The complainant brings research misconduct allegations directly to the attention of the University or a relevant agency official through any means of communication.

The complainant will make allegations in good faith, as it is defined in this policy, as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time. Complainants should provide and/or identify all relevant information in their possession or knowledge relating to the allegation, even though evidence is not required to make an allegation. Allegations are evaluated in accordance with applicable criteria. An individual found not to have acted in good faith may be referred for action under applicable University policies.

Respondent

The respondent is the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding, and there shall be no finding of misconduct absent the respondent’s written admission or a determination based on the preponderance of the evidence. The respondent may put forth evidence of honest error or difference of opinion and has the burden of going forward with and proving such affirmative defenses by a preponderance of evidence, , and the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. The respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. The respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request. Respondents may have a support person of their choosing, who is not otherwise a party or a witness, present during any part of their participation in the process. Such persons are permitted to provide support for the Respondent but may not speak on their behalf. Support persons may not intervene or interfere with an interview or any aspect of the proceeding. Respondents also have the right to identify potential witnesses.

The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided with a transcript of the interview after it takes place, with redactions only as appropriate to protect witness identity to the greatest extent possible. The respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft investigation report to the University within 30 days of receiving it.

If admitting to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected research records and confirming the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a research misconduct proceeding.

Committee Members

Committee members are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities under the applicable regulations. Committee members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of unresolved conflicts of interest with any of the parties involved.

Committee members will conduct research misconduct proceedings consistent with this policy and any applicable regulations. The committee members, engaged in an inquiry, will determine whether an investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an inquiry report.

During an investigation, committee members participate in recorded interviews of each respondent, complainant, 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(s). The Committee will also determine whether or not the respondent(s) engaged in research misconduct and document their decision in the investigation report.

The University may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment. The Committee will consider respondent(s) comments and, if requested by the Committee , complainant(s) comments on the inquiry/investigation report(s) and document their considerations in the pertinent report. An inquiry or investigation into multiple respondents may convene with the same committee members, but there will be separate inquiry or investigation reports and separate research misconduct determinations for each respondent. Committee members may serve for more than one proceeding in cases with multiple respondents. If appropriate, Committee members may also serve for both the inquiry and the investigation. The RIO will assess potential unresolved conflicts before confirming committee membership; respondent(s) will be notified of proposed committee membership and may object to proposed members based upon a demonstrated unresolved conflict. All potential committee members, internal and external to the University, will be required to sign a Conflicts and Confidentiality Statement prior to being proposed to the respondent(s)

Witnesses

Witnesses are those people who have been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the proceeding. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. Witnesses will cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings in good faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

Institutional Deciding Official

The Vice President for Research shall serve as the University’s Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). If the IDO has an unresolved conflict, the Provost or President of the University will appoint a qualified alternative IDO who is free from unresolved conflicts for the proceeding.

The IDO will make the final determination whether to accept the inquiry and investigation reports, findings, and any recommendations contained therein, including recommendations for administrative or other actions to address the consequences of the research misconduct in accordance with relevant laws and University policies.

The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions the University has taken or will take in accord with this or other University policies, including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.

Where appropriate, such as with institutional administrative actions, the IDO will consult with the Provost, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Medical Center, Office of Counsel (OGC), and other members of University leadership or administration, including the Deans of relevant schools. To the extent other University policies govern specific administrative actions, including the Policy on Tenure and Promotion and Code of Conduct, such other policies shall control any such administrative action or related appeal, and nothing in this Policy grants the IDO any additional authority beyond those described in this Policy to impose any action, sanction, or discipline.

Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

Each member of the University has an ethical duty to report suspected research misconduct in good faith. Allegations of suspected research misconduct can be communicated via oral or written communication to the RIO, the ORISE email address or via the research misconduct reporting line. Information on how to report is available on the ORISE website. Anonymous allegations may be submitted; however, they must include enough information to allow the RIO to conduct an assessment. The University will maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible, but full anonymity cannot be guaranteed. The RIO or RIO Designee will respond as soon as possible to allegations to acknowledge their receipt.

Assessment

An assessment’s purpose is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry. An assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or RIO Designee will promptly determine whether the allegation appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct and within the scope of this policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If the RIO or RIO Designee determines that the allegation meets these criteria, they will promptly: (a) document the assessment and (b) initiate an inquiry and sequester all research records and other evidence. The RIO or RIO Designee must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation securely for seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings. Where external sponsors are involved, the Director of the Office of Research and Project Administration (ORPA) will be consulted regarding compliance with the reporting requirements of the external sponsor(s) and as appropriate, will ensure that notice is given to such sponsor(s) in accordance with their regulations and guidelines. As appropriate, the RIO or ORPA will consult with the Office of Counsel.

If the RIO or DRIO Designee determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they will prepare sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a subsequent review regarding the University’s decision not to proceed to an inquiry and securely retain this documentation for seven years. When deemed appropriate by theRIO, the RIO will inform the respondent of the allegation and the outcome of the assessment. In the RIO’s discretion, the RIO may also inform the complainant of the outcome.

Inquiry

An inquiry is warranted if the allegation (a) falls within the definition of research misconduct under PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 93 and this policy, (b) is within the applicability criteria of § 93.102 of the PHS regulations, and (c) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence. The University will complete the inquiry within 90 days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which case the University will sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report.

Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent

Before or at the time of notifying the respondent(s), the University will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years. The University has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, the University will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the relevant research records have been sequestered, and an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations are raised, the University will notify the respondent(s) in writing. When appropriate, the University will give the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonably supervised access to, the sequestered materials.

If additional respondents are identified, the University will provide written notification to the new respondent(s). All additional respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent.

The RIO will follow the University’s Standard Operating Procedure on Sequestration of Evidence in Research Misconduct Proceedings when collecting evidence, as amended from time to time. This document can be found on the ORISE website.

Initiating the Inquiry and Ensuring Neutrality

The inquiry will be conducted by the RIO, or by a committee of individuals at least one of whom has appropriate subject matter expertise, depending upon the subject matter of the allegation. The committee will be comprised of at least three (3) qualified individuals, typically faculty members. The RIO may identify potential committee members external to the University community as needed to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to allow for adequate subject matter expertise. The University will ensure that the RIO, RIO Designee, or committee members understand their charge, keep the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses confidential, and conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and applicable regulations. The RIO, RIO Designee, or committee may rely on ad hoc subject matter resources as needed to assist in the inquiry. The RIO will assess potential unresolved conflicts before confirming ad hoc subject matter resources; respondents will be notified of committee membership and may object to members for unresolved conflicts. All potential committee members, internal and external to the University, will be required to sign a Conflicts and Confidentiality Statement prior to being proposed to the respondent(s).

Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

The RIO, RIO Designee, or inquiry committee will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence, which may include an interview of the respondent, witnesses, or complainant. An investigation is warranted if (a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct in this policy; and (b) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation is credible, specific, and may have substance to warrant an investigation.

Unless the respondent has made an acceptable admission, the RIO, or inquiry committee will not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.

Documenting the Inquiry

At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the RIO, RIO Designee, or committee will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:

1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
3. Details about the funding source, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal sources of funding
4. The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
6. Transcripts of interviews. Transcriptions will contain redactions, as appropriate to protect witness identity.
7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. The basis for recommending that any allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
11. Any comments on or responses to the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s), including any materials submitted as part of an affirmative defense by the respondent
12. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
13. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

Completing the Inquiry

The University will give the respondent a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment. Any comments received by the respondent(s) within fourteen calendar days will be attached to the final inquiry report. Extensions may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The University may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment.

The RIO or RIO Designee will notify the respondent of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the respondent with copies of the final inquiry report, the PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 93, when applicable, and this policy and procedures. The University may, but is not required to, notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. If the University chooses to provide notice to one complainant in a case, it will provide notice, to the extent possible, to all complainants in the case.

If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:

If the RIO or RIO Designee, or inquiry committee determines that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO or RIO Designee will prepare sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a subsequent review, upon request by pertinent agencies, regarding the University’s decision not to proceed to an investigation. The records will be securely retained for a period of seven years after the termination of the inquiry.

If an Investigation is Warranted:

If the RIO, or inquiry committee determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO or RIO Designee will: (a) within a reasonable amount of time and as soon as possible after this decision, provide written notice to the respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and (b) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide pertinent agencies with a copy of the inquiry report.

On a case-by-case basis, the University may choose to notify the complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct; the University will take the same notification action for all complainants in cases where there is more than one complainant.

Investigation

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, who will make the final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions. As part of its investigation, the University will pursue diligently all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion. If the research is federally funded, the University will ensure compliance with federal deadlines and reporting obligations, including notifications to ORI.

Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

The RIO or RIO Designee will notify the respondent(s) of the allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the University will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them with an opportunity to respond. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent. If the University identifies additional respondents during the investigation, it may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. The RIO or RIO Designee will sequester the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence, inventory these materials, store them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any HHS or other external agency proceeding, whichever is later.

Convening an Investigation Committee

The investigation will be conducted by a committee of individuals at least one of whom has appropriate subject matter expertise, depending upon the subject matter of the allegation. The committee will be comprised of at least three (3) qualified individuals, typically faculty members. The RIO may identify potential committee members external to the University community as needed to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to allow for adequate subject matter expertise. After vetting investigation committee members for conflicts and appropriate scientific expertise, the RIO or RIO Designee will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and applicable regulations. The respondent will be notified of the committee composition and be given an opportunity to report any unresolved conflicts with any of the proposed members. The investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s). The RIO or RIO Designee will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The RIO or RIO Designee will notify the respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.

Conducting Interviews

The Committee, with support from the RIO, will interview each respondent, complainant(s), 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. All relevant exhibits will be numbered, and any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview will be referred to by that number. The RIO or RIO Designee will record and transcribe interviews during the investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. The RIO or RIO Designee will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but the institution will provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to protect the identity of the witnesses to the greatest extent possible.

Documenting the Investigation

The University will complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days. The Committee, with support from the RIO, will conduct the investigation, prepare the draft investigation report for each respondent, and provide the opportunity for respondents to comment. The RIO or RIO Designee will document the IDO’s final decision and transmit the institutional record (including the final investigation report and IDO’s decision) to relevant agencies. If the investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, and involves PHS-funded research, the RIO or RIO Designee will ask ORI in writing for an extension. The RIO or RIO Designee will document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report.

The investigation report for each respondent will include:

1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
2. Description and documentation of funding support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal sources of funding support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
4. Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the University did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted. Transcriptions will contain redactions, as appropriate to protect witness identity to the greatest extent possible
7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), federal funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. A copy of these policies and procedures.
10. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.

If the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the Committee’s investigation report will include a finding for each allegation. These findings will (a) identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct; (b) indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; (c) indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (d) identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence; (e) summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent; (f) identify the specific funding support; and (g) state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

If the investigation committee does not recommend a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the investigation report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

Completing the Investigation

The University will give the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the research records and other evidence that the investigation committee considered or relied on. The respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to the University within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. If the University chooses to share a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it with the complainant(s) for comment, the complainant’s comments will be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they received the draft report. The University will add any comments received to the final investigation report.

Institutional Deciding Official Review of the Investigation Report

The IDO will review the investigation report and make a final written determination of whether the University found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO will also include a description of (i) any relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken; (ii) any disciplinary proceedings or other actions taken pursuant to separate University policies and procedures including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion; and (iii) the relevant University officials, leadership or administration and processes that led to such actions. Where appropriate, such as with institutional administrative actions, the IDO will consult with the Provost, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Medical Center, and other members of University leadership or administration, including the Deans of relevant schools. Nothing in this Policy grants the IDO any additional authority beyond that described in this Policy to impose any action, sanction, or punishment.

Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record

After the IDO has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, the University will add the IDO’s written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional record, as defined above, in a logical manner.

After the IDO has made a final written determination, the University will transmit the institutional record to pertinent agencies, including ORI if the misconduct occurred on a project that was federally funded, in compliance with relevant deadlines and reporting obligations.

Other Procedures and Special Circumstances

Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, the University may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, the lead institution will obtain research records and other evidence pertinent to the proceeding, including witness testimony, from the other relevant institutions. By mutual agreement, the joint research misconduct proceeding may include committee members from the institutions involved. The determination of whether further inquiry and/or investigation is warranted, whether research misconduct occurred, and the institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead institution.

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple respondents, the University may either conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings. The University must give additional respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Respondent Admissions

The respondent may at any time during the proceeding prepare a written admission of research misconduct or enter into a written agreement with the University resolving certain issues material to the proceeding. The University will promptly notify relevant agencies in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, or investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct , or if the respondent has entered into a written agreement with the University resolving certain issues material to the proceeding If the respondent admits to research misconduct, the University will not close the case until providing the applicable agency with the respondent’s signed, written admission. The admission must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that the research misconduct constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The University will not close the case until giving such agency a written statement confirming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how the University determined that the respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.

Appeals

Respondents have the right to appeal the Institutional Deciding Official’s final determination and/or the administrative actions resulting from the research misconduct proceeding unless an appeal is separately provided for under another University policy governing the administrative action, including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion, in which case appeals should be submitted in accord with such other University policy, and the outcome of the appeal reported to the RIO. Appeals are limited in scope and must follow the procedures below.

1. Who May Appeal
   1. The Respondent(s) may submit an appeal of the final determination or any administrative actions that are not separately governed by another University policy, including the Policy on Tenure and Promotion.
   2. If the RIO determines it is appropriate to notify a complainant of the result, as permitted and appropriate under University policy and federal regulations, the RIO may notify the complainant of outcomes. If notified, the complainants may raise concerns about procedural irregularities to the RIO; however, this is not an appeal.

2. Grounds for Appeal
   1. Appeals must be based on one or more of the following:
      1. A substantial procedural error in adhering to the University’s Research Misconduct Policy that materially affected the outcome; or
      2. New, significant evidence that was not reasonably available during the investigation and that could have materially affected the Inquiry or Investigation Committee’s determinations; or
      3. Administrative actions that are disproportionate to the findings; however, if a separate University policy governs the administrative action, including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion, any appeal of the administrative action should be submitted in accord with such other University policy, and the outcome of the appeal reported to the RIO.

3. Timeframe and Contents
   1. Appeals must be submitted in writing via email with attachments within twenty one (21) calendar days of receipt of the IDO’s written decision.
   2. The appeal must identify specific portions of the Inquiry or Investigative Committee report, or IDO’s written determination that are being appealed, with exact references by page and line number. For each item, the appellant must identify the alleged error and explain the nature of the error with specific references or citations to the institutional record. The appeal must be clear and specific and must be limited to providing new information or arguments that were not previously submitted in respondent’s comments on draft inquiry or investigation reports. If the appeal is based on new, significant evidence, respondent shall also provide a detailed explanation regarding why such evidence was not previously provided during the course of the proceeding.

4. To Whom the Appeal is Made
   1. Appeals must be submitted in writing via email with attachments to the RIO.
   2. Appeals must be addressed to the Provost through the Office of the Provost. If the Provost has an unresolved conflict, the University President will designate an alternative senior official to review the appeal.

5. Review of Appeals
   1. The Provost will conduct a thorough review of the appeal and of any relevant portions of the institutional record.
      1. The Provost’s review shall be limited to the contents of the appeal and the institutional record, unless respondent provides sufficient justification for including new, material evidence that was not previously provided during the course of the proceeding.
   2. The Provost will issue a written decision either upholding, modifying, or directing the RIO to obtain further review of the matter which may include performing parts of the proceeding again, such as reconvening or reconstituting the Committee, or supplementing the record with review of additional matters or reconsidering aspects of the determination.
   3. The decision on appeal is final within the University, subject only to obligations for external reporting or review (e.g., by HHS ORI).

Restoration of Reputation

If the University makes no finding of research misconduct, the RIO will, upon request and as appropriate, make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the respondent’s reputation and ability to continue their academic career. The RIO will collaborate with other University offices and leaders, as necessary.

Other Special Circumstances

At any time during misconduct proceedings, the University will immediately notify ORI when the research is PHS funded, or other relevant agencies and with confidentiality in mind, if any of the following circumstances arise:

1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
2. HHS or other external agency resources or interests are threatened.
3. Research activities should be suspended.
4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
6. HHS or other external agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

Records Retention

The University will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, including physical objects (regardless of whether the evidence is part of the institutional record), in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any HHS or other external agency proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to HHS or another external agency.

The post Policy on Research Misconduct appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

This policy ensures that compensation practices for University Senior Leaders align with the University’s governance standards and applicable oversight requirements. Guest lecturing in University offered courses is an important way for senior leaders to contribute to the academic mission of the University. As such, receipt of additional compensation for such activities is generally not permissible.

Definitions

• Guest Lecture: A single or occasional instructional session delivered as part of a credit or non-credit bearing course. A guest lecture does not involve designing or managing the course, grading, or being listed as the instructor of record.
• University Senior Leaders: Includes the President, Provost, Executive and Senior Vice Presidents, Vice Presidents, Deans, and all members of the President’s Senior Leadership Group and Cabinet as well as those at the Medical Center with Vice President in their title.
• Compensation: Any form of payment, including stipends or salary supplements, offered in exchange for instructional services.

Scope/Compliance

This policy applies to all University Senior Leaders, as defined herein. All University departments, schools, and programs must follow this policy when planning for University Senior Leaders to provide guest lecturing contributions.

Policy Details

A. General Rules
University Senior Leaders may not receive additional compensation for guest lecturing in any ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ credit or non-credit bearing courses. Any guest lecturing services provided by University Senior Leaders are considered part of the University Senior Leader’s existing institutional service responsibilities and should be provided without additional pay. In rare cases, an exception may be considered, but only with prior written approval from the President, Senior Vice President for Human Resources (CHRO), and when applicable also by the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the Board (CCC) for applicable Senior Leaders whose compensation is reviewed by the CCC. Without this advance approval, no additional compensation—whether in the form of stipends, or other payments—may be offered, accepted, or processed. As per the Honorarium Policy, Honorarium may not be paid to a University employee.

B. Governance and Oversight
Compensation for University Senior Leaders is subject to oversight by the Senior Vice President of Human Resources for the University and for certain executives by the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the University’s Board of Trustees. The Senior Vice President for Human Resources ensures that all pay practices for University Senior Leaders are compliant with regulatory standards, and consistent with the University’s governance principles. Any proposal to compensate a University Senior Leader for guest lecturing must be reviewed in light of these standards and is not eligible for retroactive approval. All requests for exceptions to this policy should be submitted to the Senior Vice President for Human Resources, who will move the request through the proper approval process.

C. Conditions and Restrictions
This policy applies specifically to guest lecturing activities that occur within ĚěĂŔ´«Ă˝ credit and non-credit bearing courses. These activities typically involve a one-time or occasional appearance and do not include responsibilities such as course design, course management, grading, or being listed as the instructor of record. When a University Senior Leader engages in formal course instruction, a separate review and approval process by the President, Provost, Senior Vice President for Human Resources, and when applicable the Compensation Compliance Committee of the Board of Trustees must be followed.

1. The following restrictions apply:
   1. Additional compensation to University Senior Leaders may not be offered, accepted, or processed for guest lecturing unless prior written approval is obtained from the President, the Senior Vice President for Human Resources, and when applicable the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the Board of Trustees.
   2. Retroactive approvals are not permitted.
   3. Any violation of this policy may result in canceled or delayed payments and may be subject to additional internal review.

D. Exclusions and Exceptions

1. This policy does not apply to:
   1. Faculty or staff who are not part of the University Senior Leader group as defined by this policy.

2. Exceptions to this policy are rare and will only be granted when:
   1. A compelling institutional justification is provided in writing.
   2. Approval is received in advance from the President, Senior Vice President for Human Resources, and when applicable the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the Board of Trustees.

The post Senior Leader Compensation for Guest Lecturing appeared first on Policies & Procedures.