The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Policy # [####]
Faculty Complaints Policy (FAC 9.C)
Original Issuance Date: MMMM DD, YYYY
Last Revision Date: MMMM DD, YYYY
Next Review Date: MMMM DD, YYYY
2. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
6. POLICY STATEMENT
Part C Faculty Complaints
FAC 9.C.2. Definition and Purpose.
A formal complaint expresses an objection to perceived misconduct and seeks disciplinary action against the offender. The purpose of this procedure is to provide a means by which administrators, students, academic staff members, other faculty members, classified staff members or members of the general public may bring a complaint against the conduct of a faculty member.
FAC 9.C.3. Complaints Against Faculty Members.
Complaints may be brought against faculty members for conduct which violates university rules or policies or which adversely affects the faculty member’s performance of his/her obligation to the university but which allegations are not serious enough to warrant dismissal proceedings under UWS 4. The Chancellor shall determine after receiving the complaint whether it is to be considered under this part or the section of these rules titled “Faculty Dismissal.”
(1) Form of a Complaint.
Complaints shall be written and signed by the complainant. They shall identify the acts which allegedly violate university rules or policies or breach the faculty member’s obligations, and they shall specify the rules or policies which have allegedly been violated or the obligations allegedly breached.
(2) Complaint Procedures.
(a) Upon receiving a complaint the Chancellor shall determine whether it warrants further consideration. If the Chancellor decides to reject the complaint at this stage, he or she shall so notify the complainant and shall explain the reasons why the complaint has been rejected. If the Chancellor decides to accept the complaint, he or she shall send a copy of the complaint to the faculty member it names and shall request a written response to the complaint within ten working days.
(b) Upon receipt of the faculty member’s response or after ten working days have passed without a response, the Chancellor may dismiss the complaint or initiate a formal review of it. In the formal review, if any, the Chancellor shall examine all pertinent documents and interview all persons likely to have knowledge about the conduct in question and in general shall afford both the complainant and the respondent full and fair opportunity to show why the complaint should be prosecuted further or dropped. The Chancellor may appoint a designate to carry out the formal review and recommend appropriate action upon the complaint.
(c) Within twenty working days of initiating a formal review, the Chancellor shall take one of the following actions on the complaint and shall inform both the complainant and the respondent of the action:
1. Dismissal of the complaint;
2. Invocation of a sanction against the respondent; or
3. Referral to the Faculty Hearing Committee.
(d) If the complaint is dismissed, the faculty member shall not be subjected to further jeopardy for the same alleged misconduct.
(e) If the Chancellor invokes a sanction, he/she shall inform the faculty respondent of the reasons for his/her decision.
(f) If there is administrative disciplinary action, this may include sanctions such as:
1. Oral admonishment
2. Written reprimand
3. Requirement for restitution
4. Suspension of specific privileges
5. Reduction in salary; or
6. Reduction in rank
(g) Before invoking any sanction, the Chancellor will consult with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate about the appropriateness of the proposed sanction. If the Executive Committee and the Chancellor disagree about the appropriateness of the sanction, the Chancellor will inform the committee in writing of his/her reasons for thinking the proposed sanctions appropriate.
(h) Sanctions shall be subject to review by the Faculty Hearing Committee, upon request by the faculty member. If the Chancellor rejects the recommendations of the hearing subcommittee, he or she shall provide the subcommittee and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate with a written statement of his/her reasons for rejecting the findings of the hearing subcommittee.
(i) Within ten working days of receiving notice from the Chancellor of administrative invocation of disciplinary action, the faculty member may file a request for review by the Faculty Hearing Committee. Should such a review be requested, the implementation of the administrative sanction shall be stayed pending the final decision by the Chancellor after receipt of the recommendation of the hearing subcommittee.
(j) If the Chancellor refers a complaint to the Faculty Hearing Committee, or if the faculty member requests such referral after administrative invocation of disciplinary action, the subcommittee shall follow the procedures outlined in the sub-chapter titled “Faculty Senate Hearing Committee.” Normally, the hearing shall be completed within thirty working days. If the hearing committee is required by extenuating circumstances to extend the hearing beyond thirty days, it shall file with the chairperson of the Faculty Hearing Committee and the president of the Faculty Senate a statement of the reasons why it must extend the timeliness for the hearing and a tentative timetable for completing its hearing on the complaint.
(k) The findings and recommendations of the hearing subcommittee shall be transmitted to the faculty member, the complainant, and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate for submission to the Chancellor. The hearing subcommittee shall recommend to the Chancellor either dismissal of the complaint, specified disciplinary action such as indicated in section (f), above, or referral to a department or administrative officer for appropriate action.
(l) The Chancellor shall render a formal, written decision to the faculty member, the complainant, appropriate university officers and, for information only, to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate within ten working days of receipt of the recommendation from the Executive Committee. If the Chancellor fails to accept the recommendations of the hearing subcommittee, he or she shall provide the subcommittee, the chairperson of the Faculty Hearing Committee, the Executive Committee, and the principals in the complaint with a written rationale for rejecting the subcommittee’s recommendations.
(m) At the request of the faculty member, the Board of Regents, at its option, may choose to grant a review of the decision on the record.
9. REVISION HISTORY