UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO[143]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO SENATE AGENDA 1 APRIL 23, 2009, STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING, ROOMS B&C, 3:15PM I. II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ann Weller, Presiding Officer REMARKS - Paula Allen-Meares, Chancellor - Michael Tanner, Provost APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ann Weller, Presiding Officer - Senate Meeting of March 12, 2009 (attached p. 2) COMMITTEE REPORTS • EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT Elliot Kaufman, Chair - Oral Report - For Action: Second Reading: Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Article VIII, Changes in Academic Organization (USC ST-66) (proposal attached p. 6) - For Action: Resolution of the UIC Senate on the Funding of the Advanced Chemical Technology Building at UIC (attached p.10) - For Action: Motion to Confer Degrees (proposal attached p. 11) - For Action: Academic Calendars for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 (attached pp. 12 & 13) - For Information: Proposed revisions to the Policy and Procedures on Academic Integrity in Research and Publication (attached p.14) • EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT John Huntington, Chair - For Action: New and Revised Programs (report available at: http://www.uic.edu/depts/senate/SCEPApril23%2709Report.pdf) ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE Alan Schwartz, Chair - Written Report (report attached p. 34) III. IV. • V. OBSERVER, REPRESENTATIVE REPORTS - Oral Report: IBHE Faculty Advisory Council, David Bardack (written report p. 35) - Oral Report: SURS Members Advisory Committee, Henri Gillet (written report p. 42) OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS VI. VII. VIII. ADJOURNMENT (4:45pm unless extended by vote) ******************************************************************************************************************* - Parking for Senate members is available in the Harrison Street Parking Structure after 2:30 p.m. on Senate meeting days by pre-arrangement with the Parking Office. - When addressing the Senate, please step to the microphone and identify yourself for recording purposes. Thank you. - For Regional Sites: Senate teleconference dial-up should be available at 3:05 pm at (312) 413-2005 2 Senate Minutes March 12, 2009 M1 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO MINUTES OF THE SENATE MEETING (2008-09) MARCH 12, 2009, STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING (SSB) 3:15 P.M. 3/12/09-1 The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. by Presiding Officer Ann Weller (LIB). Senators Peacock (SPH) and Bike (AP-DENT) agreed to serve as tellers for today’s meeting. Senators from the College of Medicine regional sites, Urbana and Peoria, participated by teleconference. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ann Weller, Presiding Officer 3/12/09-2 Presiding Officer Weller welcomed everyone to the March 12 Senate meeting. She reminded Senators that March 19, 2009 is the deadline to submit Faculty Advisory Committee nominating petitions. The petitions are available on the Senate website. CHANCELLOR’S REMARKS Paula Allen-Meares 3/12/09-3 Chancellor Allen-Meares announced that as a result of the March 6 incident the campus will be reviewing the emergency notification procedures. She thanked both the Senate observers to the Board of Trustees meetings and the IBHE Faculty Advisory Council Reporting Representative for the time they spend participating in various meetings. Chancellor Allen-Meares stated that deferred maintenance is a very important issue and that the Board of Trustees approved renovations to the Daley Library and the waterproofing of the EPACSW plaza. She invited Larry Danziger, Interim Vice Chancellor for Research, to speak about opportunities available as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). His powerpoint presentation is available at: http://tigger.uic.edu/depts/ovcr/research/recovery/ARRA_OVCR.pps PROVOST’S REMARKS R. Michael Tanner 3/12/09-4 Provost Tanner discussed the maintenance of effort provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which asserts that FY08 higher education funding levels from the states should be maintained in FY2010. The University of Illinois is currently looking at how to reduce administrative costs by 15% in non-academic areas. Provost Tanner provided an update on the Board of Trustee’s request for a Faculty Productivity Study. He also reported that at the March Board of Trustees meeting a constitution for the Global Campus academic policy council was approved, which is another step towards separate accreditation for Global Campus. There were no questions or comments. 3 Senate Minutes March 12, 2009 M2 GUESTS Master Plan Advisory Committee Members: James Foerster, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facility and Space Planning Mark Donovan, Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services Lon Kaufman, Vice Provost for Planning and Programs Charles Hoch, Professor, Department of Urban Planning and Policy 3/12/09-5 Lon Kaufman, Vice Provost for Planning and Programs, introduced the master planning process and announced the dates for upcoming open houses. James Foerster, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facility and Space Planning, provided background information and discussed objectives, organization and schedule issues. He emphasized the Advisory Committee's role in promoting active engagement in the planning process. Then Charles Hoch, Professor of Urban Planning and Policy, invited questions and comments from the Senators regarding the positive and negative aspects of the UIC campus, as well as what issues should be addressed in the new campus master plan. MINUTES 3/12/09-6 Minutes of the Senate meeting held on January 29, 2009 were approved as submitted. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT Elliot Kaufman, Chair 3/12/09-7 On behalf of the committee, Chair Kaufman introduced for first reading proposed revisions to the Statutes, Article VIII, Changes in Academic Organization (USC ST-66). Chair Kaufman provided background information about the proposed revisions. There was no further discussion. Chair Kaufman, on behalf of the committee, introduced for approval proposed revisions to the “University of Illinois at Chicago Promotion and Tenure Committee Policies and Procedure” that clarify the criterion used to determine the eligibility of faculty members who can participate in the nomination of the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee members. There was no discussion and the motion to approve carried. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE John Huntington, Chair 3/12/09-9 On behalf of the committee, Chair Huntington presented an overview of the following new and revised programs and policies for approval: PR-09.22, Revision of the Master of Public Administration (MPA) Program: Establishment of a Concentration in Nonprofit Management; PR-09.23, Request to Accept IELTS Test Results for English Proficiency of International Applicants, In Addition to the TOEFL Tests Already Established; PR-09.24, Establish the Master of Arts in Latin American and Latino Studies; PR-09.25, Revision of the Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering; PR-09.26, Establishment of a Master of Engineering Course Subject (Rubric) – MENG; PR-09.27, Revision of the Master of Science in Nursing; PR-09.28, Revision of the School/Advanced Community Health Nurse Specialist Concentration, Master of Science in Nursing; PR-09.29, Revision of Nurse Midwifery Concentration within the Master of Science (MS) in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs and Revision of Women’s Health Nurse Practitioner Concentration within the Master of Science (MS) in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs; 3/12/09-8 4 Senate Minutes March 12, 2009 M3 PR-09.30, Revision of College of Nursing Course Subjects (Rubrics); PR-09.31, Revision of the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering; PR-09.32, Revision of the Requirements for Highest Distinction for the Major in Economics, Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences; PR-09.33, Revision and Redesignation of the Minor in Real Estate as the Minor in Urban Real Estate; PR-09.34, Revision and Redesignation of Minor in Labor Markets and Workforce Development to the Minor in Human Capital and Labor Markets; PR-09.35, Revision of the Major in English, Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences; and the Minor in English; CP-09.04, Establish a Campus Certificate in Geospatial Analysis and Visualization; CP-09.05, Revision of the EvidenceBased Mental Health Practice with Children IBHE Certificate Program; CP-09.06, Establish a Campus Certificate in Educational Research Methodology; CP-09.07, Conversion of the Existing Master of Education (M.Ed.) in Measurement, Evaluation, Statistics and Assessment (MESA), as an Online Degree; CP-09.08, Establish a Campus Certificate in Electronic Government; CP-09.09, Revision of the Advance IBHE Certificate Program in Endodontics; CP-09.10, Request to Establish a Public Health Management Campus Certificate; CP-09.11, Revision of the Emergency Management and Continuity Planning Campus Certificate; CP-09.12, Revision of the Post-Master’s Clinical Nurse Specialist Campus Certificate; CP-09.13, Establishment of the Advanced Practice Cardiometabolic Nursing Campus Certificate. There was no discussion and the motion to approve carried. STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Darryn Weinstein, Chair 3/12/09-10 Chair Weinstein reported that the Committee had met with representatives from the Undergraduate Student Government and Graduate Student Council to discuss concerns students had regarding safety, food service and transportation issues. The Committee also reviewed the UIC Experience: Engaging Students for Success program. Additional information regarding the program is available at: http://www.uic.edu/depts/ovcsa/uicexperience.html SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE Jacqueline Berger, Chair 3/12/09-11 There was no discussion regarding the written report of the Support Services Committee. OBSERVER, REPRESENTATIVE REPORTS 3/12/09-12 There was no discussion regarding the written report of the IBHE Faculty Advisory Council. EXECUTIVE SESSION (External Relations and Public Service Committee, John Cullars, Chair) 3/12/09-13 Presiding Officer Weller excused all non-Senators from the room. She reminded Senators that today’s proceedings are strictly confidential until an official announcement from the Board of Trustees. Chair Cullars presented brief biographies of the nominees for honorary degrees and moved approval on behalf of the External Relations and Public Service Committee. The motion to approve carried. 5 Senate Minutes March 12, 2009 M4 OLD BUSINESS 3/12/09-14 Presiding Officer Weller stated that there was no Old Business. NEW BUSINESS 3/12/09-15 Presiding Officer Weller stated that there was no New Business. ADJOURNMENT 3/12/09-16 The meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm. Prepared for the Senate by: Elizabeth Dooley, Senate Clerk 6 REPORT OF THE SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO THE APRIL 23, 2009 SENATE FOR ACTION: SECOND READING: Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Article VIII, Changes in Academic Organization [ST-66] Approved UIS Campus Senate Meeting September 26, 2008 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT SPRINGFIELD CAMPUS SENATE AY 2008/2009 RESOLUTION 38-7 Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Article VIII, Changes in Academic Organization [ST-66] BE IT RESOLVED, that the Campus Senate of the University of Illinois at Springfield hereby approve their “Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Article VIII, Changes in Academic Organization.” 7 UIS PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATUTES, ARTICLE VIII ARTICLE VIII, CHANGES IN ACADEMIC ORGANIZATION Section 1. Definitions. a. Unit. A unit is a division of the University to which academic appointments can be made and to which resources can be allocated, including departments or similar units, centers, institutes, schools, and colleges. b. Tenure Home. A tenure home is an academic unit (a) whose academic staff includes the group eligible to vote on promotion and tenure decisions within the unit; and (b) that provides the unitspecific standards that, in compliance with higher-level standards, apply for promotion and tenure decisions for a member of the academic staff with the rank or title of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor who is tenured or receiving probationary credit toward tenure. Section 2. Appointment of Faculty to Units A member of the academic staff with the rank or title of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor who is tenured or receiving probationary credit toward tenure must have a tenure home that has been approved through the procedures in Article VIII, Section 3a through 3c, below. A faculty member may have a tenure home in more than one academic unit, but must have a tenure home in at least one academic unit. If any member of a proposed or existing unit’s academic staff with the rank or title of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor who is tenured or receiving probationary credit toward tenure does not already have or will not otherwise have an appointment in one of the following types of units: i. another department or similar academic unit that has been approved through these Article VIII procedures; ii. an intermediate unit that is not divided into departments or similar units and that has been approved through these Article VIII procedures; or iii. a school or college that is not an intermediate unit, that is not further divided into academic departments or similar units and that has been approved through these Article VIII procedures; then formation of the proposed unit as, or conversion of the existing unit into, a unit that may provide a tenure home must be approved through the procedures in Article VIII, Section 3a through 3c, below, as applicable. Any change in academic organization such as the termination, separation, transfer, merger, change in status (e.g., department to school), or renaming of an academic unit to which are made 8 appointments of faculty with the rank or title of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor who are tenured or receiving probationary credit toward tenure must be approved through the procedures in Article VIII, Section 4, below. If all members of a proposed or existing unit’s academic staff with the rank or title of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor who are tenured or receiving probationary credit toward tenure do have or will have an appointment in another unit that is described within items (i) through (iii), above, then formation or change of organization of the proposed or existing unit is not required to be approved through the procedures in Article VIII, Sections 3 and 4, below, but may be approved through the procedure in Section 5, below. Section [1] 3. Formation of New Units a. Departments. The formation of a new department or similar academic unit within a school or college may be proposed by the faculty or executive officer of that school or college. The president shall submit the proposal for the new unit together with the advice of the faculty of the school or college of each higher unit, taken and recorded by a vote of the faculty by secret written ballot in accordance with the bylaws of that unit, of the appropriate senate, taken and recorded by a vote of the senate, [and] of the appropriate chancellor, and of the University Senates Conference to the Board of Trustees for action. b. Intermediate Units. An academic unit of intermediate character, such as a school organized within a college, may be proposed by the faculty or the executive officer of the higher unit. The president shall submit the proposal for the intermediate unit together with the advice of the higher unit, taken and recorded by a vote of the faculty by secret written ballot in accordance with the bylaws of that unit, of the appropriate senate, taken and recorded by a vote of the senate, [and] of the appropriate chancellor, and of the University Senates Conference to the Board of Trustees for action. c. Colleges and Independently Organized Campus Units. A college or other independently organized campus unit, such as a school, institute, center, or similar campus unit not within a school or college, may be proposed by the appropriate senate or chancellor. The president shall submit the proposal for the unit together with the advice of the appropriate senate, taken and recorded by a vote of the senate, [and] of the appropriate chancellor, and of the University Senates Conference to the Board of Trustees for action. d. Units Organized at the University Level. Units organized at the university level, such as institutes, councils, and divisions, may be formed for the development and operation of teaching, 9 research, extension, and service programs which are statewide or intercampus in their scope and which cannot be developed under a campus administration. Such an organization may be proposed by a senate, a chancellor, the University Senates Conference, or the president. The president shall submit the proposal for the new organization together with the advice of the appropriate senates, taken and recorded by a vote of each such senate, [and] of the appropriate chancellors, and of the University Senates Conference to the Board of Trustees for action. e. Campuses. The formation of a new campus may be proposed by the president, by a senate, or by the University Senates Conference. The president shall submit the proposal for the new campus together with the advice of the senates, taken and recorded by a vote of each senate, [and] of the chancellors, and of the University Senates Conference to the Board of Trustees for action. If the proposal is adopted, the University Senates Conference shall serve as an advisory body to the president in developing procedures to implement the action of the board. Section [2] 4. Changes in Existing Units From time to time, circumstances will favor changes in academic organization such as the termination, separation, transfer, merger, change in status (e.g., department to school), or renaming of the academic units specified in Section 1. The procedures for the various changes shall be the same as those specified for formation of such a unit, except that the proposal may originate in the unit(s) or at any higher administrative level. The advice of each unit involved shall be [requested] taken and recorded by vote of the faculty by secret written ballot in accordance with the bylaws of that unit. For transfer, merger, separation, and change in status, the procedures shall be those applicable to the type of unit which would result. Units affected may communicate with the Board of Trustees in accordance with Article XIII, Section 4, of these Statutes. Section [3] 5. Academic Units Not Requiring Board of Trustees Approval Any proposal for creation or change in organization (such as termination, separation, transfer, merger, or change in status) of any unit engaged in academic activities the creation of which does not require Board of Trustees approval shall be referred to the executive committee of the campus senate for its information and advice prior to approval by the appropriate administrator. If the unit is not organized within one campus of the University, the proposal shall be referred to the University Senates Conference rather than to a senate executive committee. Academic staff appointments in such units may not be made to ranks subject to the provisions of Article X, Section 1, governing appointments for an indefinite term as defined in Article IX, Section 3c. SR-09.01 April 23, 2009 For Action 10 RESOLUTION OF THE UIC SENATE ON THE FUNDING OF THE ADVANCED CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY BUILDING AT UIC WHEREAS, the Advanced Chemical Technology Building, heretofore known as the ACTB, is designed to provide state-of-the-art research and office space for faculty researchers in the UIC departments of Physics, Biological Sciences, and Chemistry; and the design of the ACTB will help advance the study of synthetic chemistry, physical and analytical chemistry, biochemistry, neuroscience, DNA biophysics, and nanoscience; and the 164 laboratories of the ACTB will support measurement activities, laser dynamics, nanoscience, tissue culture, DNA mechanics, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, biochemistry, bioscience and molecular synthesis; and preliminary planning for the ACTB began in the late 1990s, the Illinois legislature authorized planning funds in 2001 and construction funds in 2002, the Governor released planning and design funding in 2003, a contract for design work was awarded by the Illinois Capital Development Board in 2003, and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois approved the design in 2004; and work on the planning and design of the ACTB, done in 2004-2005, has resulted in the expenditure of $6.4 million; and the Illinois Capital Development Board suspended work on the construction bid documents in 2005, the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget has not released additional funds for construction and, although the University of Illinois continues to press both the Illinois Capitol Development Board and the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget for completion of the bid documents and for release of construction funds, the project lies fallow; and the anticipated influx of Federal stimulus dollars has renewed hope that the Illinois legislature will approve and fund a capital budget for FY 2010; and the University of Illinois has omitted the ACTB from its prioritized list of requested capital projects in anticipation of a capital budget for FY 2010; and the ACTB at UIC is not currently on anyone’s list of requested capital projects for FY 2010 because it has already been approved; and it would indeed be unfortunate to allow the ACTB project to continue to languish and even be passed over for more recently proposed University capital projects. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the UIC Senate calls upon the University administration and the Board of Trustees to publicly identify the Advanced Chemical Technology Building at UIC as the highest priority capital project for the University and to renew their efforts to have full funding for this already approved project released. 11 REPORT OF THE SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO THE APRIL 23, 2009 SENATE MEETING FOR ACTION: Motion to Confer Degrees The Senate Executive Committee moves that the Senate recommend that the President, under the authority of the University Board of Trustees, confer degrees, diplomas and certificates upon those candidates who have been recommended by their faculty. 12 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS CHICAGO SENATE (Action Item, April 23, 2009 Senate Meeting) UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO Proposed Academic Calendar for 2015-2016 Approved by the Senate Support Services Committee on March 18, 2009 Fall Semester 2015 August 24, M September 4, F September 7, M October 30, F November 26-27, Th-F December 4, F December 7-11, M-F Spring Semester 2016 January 11, M January 18, M January 22, F March 18, F March 21-25, M-F April 29, F May 2-6, M-F Summer Session 2016 4-week Session May 16, M May 18, W May 30 M June 1, W June 9, Th June 10, F 8-Week Session June 13, M June 17 July 4, M July 15, F August 3, W August 4-5, Th-F August 5, F Instruction begins. Last day to drop or add a 8-week course(s). Independence Day holiday. No classes. Last day to withdraw from an 8-week course(s) with college approval. Instruction ends. Final examinations for 8-Week Session 8-Week Session ends. Instruction begins Last day to complete late registration. Last day to add/drop a course(s) via the Web. Labor Day holiday. No classes. Last day to withdraw from a course(s) with college approval. Thanksgiving holiday. No classes. Instruction ends. Final examinations. Instruction begins Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. No classes Last day to complete late registration. Last day to add/drop a course(s) via the Web. Last day to withdraw from a course(s) with college approval. Spring vacation. No classes. Instruction ends. Final examinations. Instruction begins. Last day to drop or add a 4-week course(s). Memorial Day holiday . No classes. Last day to withdraw from a 4-week course(s) with college approval. Instruction ends for 4-Week Session Final examinations for 4-Week Session. 4-Week Session ends. 13 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS CHICAGO SENATE (Action Item, April 23, 2009 Senate Meeting) UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO Proposed Academic Calendar for 2016-2017 Approved by the Senate Support Services Committee on March 18, 2009 Fall Semester 2016 August 22, M September 2, F September 5, M October 28, F November 24-25, Th-F December 2, F December 5-9, M-F Spring Semester 2017 January 9, M January 16, M January 20, F March 17, F March 20-24, M-F April 28, F May 1-5, M-F Summer Session 2017 4-Week Session May 15, M May 17, W May 29, M May 31, W June 8, Th June 9, F Instruction begins Last day to complete late registration. Last day to add/drop a course(s) via the Web. Labor Day holiday. No classes. Last day to withdraw from a course(s) with college approval. Thanksgiving holiday. No classes. Instruction ends. Final examinations. Instruction begins Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. No classes Last day to complete late registration. Last day to add/drop a course(s) via the Web. Last day to withdraw from a course(s) with college approval. Spring vacation. No classes. Instruction ends. Final examinations. Instruction begins. Last day to drop or add a 4-week course(s). Memorial Day holiday.. No classes. Last day to withdraw from a 4-week course(s) with college approval. Instruction ends for 4-Week Session. Final examinations for 4-Week Session; 4-Week Session ends. 8-Week Session June 12, M June 16, F July 4, T July 14, F August 2, W August 3-4, Th-F August 4, F Instruction begins. Last day to drop or add a 8 week course(s). Independence Day holiday. No classes. Last day to withdraw from a 8-week course(s) with college approval. Instruction ends. Final examinations for 8-Week Session 8-Week Session ends. 14 15 16 17 18 Policy and Procedures on Integrity in Research and Publication I. INTRODUCTION This document articulates University Policy on integrity in research and publication, and prescribes procedures for impartial fact-finding and fair adjudication of allegations of academic and Research Misconduct. The Policy incorporates federal regulations and guidelines of the U.S. Public Health Service [42 CFR 93 (rev. 2005)]. (See http//:ori.dhhs.gov/). This Policy does not relieve employees from their responsibilities to comply with professional ethical guidelines, other University policies, and Illinois law. II. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Coverage This Policy applies to all faculty, students, and members of the academic and administrative staffs of the University who at the time of the alleged Research Misconduct were employed by, were an agent of, or were affiliated by contract or agreement with this institution. Codes of student conduct and other campus specific policies (e.g., Graduate College By-Laws) govern matters of academic misconduct by students. B. Authority The Vice-Chancellors for Research (VCRs) on each campus have primary responsibility for administering this Policy. Each VCR will appoint a Research Integrity Officer (RIO), who will report to the VCR and be responsible for assuring compliance with this Policy. An RIO will be a tenured faculty member or administrative officer who has an appropriate level of experience in research, compliance, or both. C. Confidentiality All persons involved in proceedings under this Policy shall keep confidential, to the extent reasonably possible, the identities of persons alleging Misconduct (“Complainant”) and persons accused of Misconduct (“Respondents”). Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, disclosure of any records of evidence from which these persons may be identified is limited to those who have a need to know to carry out a Research Misconduct proceeding. D. Academic Freedom It shall be a prime concern of all persons who implement this Policy and these procedures to protect the policies of academic freedom and tenure that are fundamental to the academic enterprise. Academic freedom affords no license for the Research Misconduct described below in Section III. 1 19 III. DEFINITIONS A. Assessment Phase refers to initial evaluation prior to determining whether the Complaint falls within the scope of this Policy. B. Complainant means a person who makes a Complaint of Research Misconduct. C. Complaint means a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication to an institutional or other official; synonymous with allegation. D. Evidence means any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. E. Good faith, as applied to a complainant or witness, means having a belief in the truth of one’s Complaint or testimony that a reasonable person in the Complainant’s or witness’s position could have based on the information known to the Complainant or witness at the time. A Complaint or cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if it is made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Complaint or testimony. Good faith as applied to an Inquiry team or Investigation panel means cooperating with the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this Policy. An Inquiry team or Investigation panel member does not act in good faith if his/her acts or omissions on the Inquiry team or Investigation panel are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct proceeding. F. Inquiry means any review or proceeding conducted to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of Research Misconduct to warrant an Investigation. G. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, clinical technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, and other employees. H. Investigation is a proceeding conducted under this Policy through which it is determined whether the alleged Research Misconduct occurred. The purpose of the Investigation is to develop a factual record by exploring the allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether Research Misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The Investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible Research Misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. I. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not. J. Records of Research Misconduct proceedings means: (1) the research records and evidence secured for the Research Misconduct proceeding pursuant to this Policy, except to the extent the research Integrity Officer determines and documents that those records are not relevant to the proceeding or that the records duplicate other records that have been retained; (2) the 2 20 documentation of the determination of irrelevant or duplicate records; (3) the Inquiry report and final documents (not drafts) produced in the course of preparing that report, including the documentation of any decision not to investigate; (4) the Investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) in support of the report, including any recordings or transcripts of each interview conducted; and (5) the complete record of any appeal within the institution from the finding of Research Misconduct. K. Research Integrity Officer (RIO) means the institutional official responsible for: 1. Overseeing Inquiries and Investigations; and 2. Other responsibilities described in this Policy. L. Research Misconduct (“Misconduct”) includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. 1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. 2. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. 3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. 4. Research Misconduct does not include honest error or difference of opinion. Research Misconduct also includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Intentionally misleading, selective, or deliberately false reporting of credentials and related information; 2. Abuse of confidentiality with respect to unpublished materials; 3. Misappropriation of research materials; 4. Evasion, or intentional failure to comply after notice with research regulations, such as those governing conflict of interest/commitment, human subjects, laboratory animals, new drugs, radioactive materials, genetically altered organisms, and safety; and, 5. Any other conduct that constitutes a serious deviation from accepted ethical guidelines and professional standards in scholarship and research. M. Research record means the record of data or results, whether in physical or electronic form, that embody the facts resulting from research inquiry. Research records include but are not limited to research proposals, laboratory records, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided to an institutional official by a respondent in the course of the Research Misconduct proceeding. N. Respondent means the person against whom a Complaint of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct proceeding. O. Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, witness, or an Inquiry Team or Investigation Panel member by this institution or one of its institutional members in response to (1) a good faith Complaint of Research Misconduct; or (2) good faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct proceeding. 3 21 P. Sanctions mean consequences imposed by the Chancellor in the final disposition of the case. IV. EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS Evidentiary Standards A finding of Research Misconduct requires that: 1. There has been a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant professional community; 2. The Misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and, 3. The Complaint is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The destruction, absence of, or Respondent’s failure to provide research records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of Misconduct where the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner, and that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant professional community. V. GENERAL PROCEDURES A. The Process After an initial Assessment, an Inquiry is conducted to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence to justify an Investigation. If so, a formal Investigation is conducted to determine whether Research Misconduct has occurred. 1. Responsibility of the RIO. The RIO is responsible for procedures and laws applicable to the research under review that may be associated with Research Misconduct. The RIO will assist Inquiry Teams, Investigation Panels, and all other University employees in complying with this Policy. (a) During the course of an Inquiry or an Investigation, the RIO will provide information about the status of the proceedings to, and respond to inquiries from, the Dean, the Unit Executive Officer (UEO), the Respondent, and the Complainant to the extent required by this Policy and federal law. The responsibilities assigned to the RIO shall not be deemed to constitute rights of the Respondent. (b) The RIO will maintain a file of all documents and evidence, and is responsible for the confidentiality and the security of the file. All information and items furnished will be made available to any Inquiry Team or Investigation Panel that may be appointed. 4 22 (c) The RIO shall be the University point of contact with the Office of Research Integrity and other external agencies. (d) The RIO shall consult with the Office of University Counsel with respect to legal matters. 2. Conflict of Interest. If anyone charged with responsibility under this Policy has a potential or actual conflict of interest involving a Complaint of Research Misconduct, that person shall disclose such conflict to the RIO; if the RIO has such a conflict, the RIO will inform the VCR. The VCR will have the discretion to handle conflicts of interest identified in this process, and the VCR’s decision will be final. If the VCR has a conflict of interest, the Chancellor will appoint a replacement. 3. Prompt Resolution. All processes and proceedings should be conducted expeditiously and adhere to the timelines set out herein. Nevertheless, after consultation with the RIO and the Respondent, a Chancellor may for good cause extend any timeline or make such other changes to these procedures as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Policy or insure a Respondent's right of due process, provided that the changes do not infringe upon a Respondent’s rights or impair the ability to defend. 4. Proceedings at Federal Request. If an external agency requests that the University undertake an Inquiry, Investigation, or other federally mandated proceeding, then the VCR shall initiate such proceedings. In this case, the Dean will notify the UEO. 5. Right of Representation. At any stage of the proceedings hereunder, the Respondent may consult with appropriate student, faculty, or professional advisory groups. The Respondent may consult with private legal counsel, and may be accompanied and advised by an advisor at any interview or meeting under this Policy. An advisor may, but need not, be an attorney. The advisor may not present the case or otherwise participate in the proceeding. The RIO may request the presence of an attorney from the Office of University counsel at such an interview. 6. Complaints involving University Administration. Complaints concerning an employee of University Administration should be communicated to the Vice-President for Academic Affairs. The Vice-President will assign responsibility for handling the Complaint under this Policy to an appropriate and impartial administrator. An RIO may be assigned to assist. All other procedures shall follow this Policy. B. The Complaint and Assessment Any member of the University community who has information related to potential Research Misconduct has a duty to report such information to the Respondent’s UEO, or to the RIO, each of whom will notify the other promptly. The Complainant should make allegations in good faith, maintain confidentiality, and, if the complainant is known, cooperate in the Inquiry and Investigation when appropriate. The RIO, with the assistance of the UEO, shall initiate the processes of this Policy upon receiving information of Misconduct, regardless of whether such information originates within or without the University. No Complaint shall be heard or reviewed under this Policy as to conduct alleged to have occurred six years or more before the date of receipt of the Complaint. 5 23 1. Cooperation with Research Misconduct Proceedings Members of the University community will cooperate with the RIO and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and Investigations. Institutional members, including Respondents, have an obligation to provide evidence relevant to Research Misconduct allegations to the RIO or other institutional officials. 2. Assessment of Complaints - Notice to Dean. Upon receiving a Complaint, the UEO, with assistance of the RIO, will immediately begin to assess the Complaint to determine whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified, and whether the Complaint falls within the definition of Research Misconduct in this Policy. Unless a Complaint clearly falls outside the scope of this Policy, the UEO, with the assistance of the RIO, will bring the Complaint to the attention of the Dean or equivalent (hereinafter "Dean") to whom the UEO reports The Assessment period should be brief, preferably concluded within 15 calendar days. In conducting the Assessment, the RIO need not interview the Complainant, Respondent, or other witnesses, or gather data beyond any that may have been submitted with the Complaint, except as necessary to determine whether the Complaint is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified. 3. Decision by Dean. Within 15 calendar days after a Complaint has been brought to the Dean, the Dean shall decide whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an Inquiry. In cases involving more than one unit, the Deans from both units will jointly determine whether an Inquiry is required. If the Deans cannot agree, the Provost will decide. A Complainant may appeal the decision not to pursue an Inquiry to the VCR in writing within 15 calendar days of the decision. If the Complaint is not brought to the Inquiry stage, the RIO will direct that all references to the Complaint be expunged from the Respondent's personnel file. The Respondent, Complainant, and all persons who have been informed of the Complaint shall be notified in writing of the disposition of the Complaint. In the case of a Complaint that might be affected by the six-year time limitation above, the Dean shall first consult with the RIO and Office of University Counsel before making a decision to reject a Complaint based upon the limitation. At any stage of these proceedings, a Complaint may be dismissed upon a finding that the facts giving rise to the Complaint of Misconduct occurred more than six years before receipt of the Complaint. 4. Protecting the Respondent As requested and as appropriate, the RIO and other institutional officials shall make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in Research Misconduct, but against whom no finding of Research Misconduct is made. During the Research Misconduct proceeding, the RIO is responsible for ensuring that Respondents receive all the notices and opportunities provided for under this Policy. 6 24 5. Protecting Complainants, Witnesses, and Other Participants Institutional members may not retaliate in any way against Complainants, witnesses, or other participants. Institutional members should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation against Complainants, witnesses, or other participants to the RIO, who shall review the matter and, as necessary, make all reasonable and practical efforts to counter any potential or actual retaliation and protect and restore the position and reputation of the person against whom the retaliation is directed. 6. Interim Actions. At any time after a Complaint is made, but before final disposition of the case, the VCR, RIO, or Dean, with the Chancellor’s approval, may take any action deemed necessary to (a) protect the health and safety of research subjects or patients; (b) protect the interests of students, faculty, and staff; (c) preserve evidence; or (d) protect University resources. Any interim action should be fashioned so as to impose minimal burdens on the Respondent and others who may be affected, and to comply with federal law, the University Statutes, and General Rules. 7. Criminal Conduct. If any evidence of criminal conduct is discovered during an Inquiry or Investigation, the Office of University Counsel shall be notified and appropriate steps taken. The Inquiry or Investigation shall not be suspended. C. Sequestration of Records and Evidence On or before the date on which the Respondent is notified, or the Inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the RIO, in consultation with University Counsel, shall undertake reasonable and practical steps to secure all research records and other evidence needed to conduct a Research Misconduct proceeding, to inventory those materials, and to sequester them in a secure manner. 1. Custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence, in cases where the RIO determines that the evidentiary value of those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the original material. 2. Whenever practicable, the Respondent may have copies of, or reasonable supervised access to, sequestered research records. 3. The RIO shall undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to secure additional research records and evidence discovered during the course of the Research Misconduct proceedings, including at the Inquiry and Investigation stages, or if new allegations arise. VI. INQUIRY A. Notice to Respondent Before beginning an Inquiry, the RIO must make a good faith effort to notify the Respondent in writing, if the Respondent is known. If the Inquiry subsequently identifies additional Respondents, they must be notified in writing. 7 25 Upon selection of the Inquiry Team, the RIO will send the Respondent a letter presenting the allegations and this University Policy. The RIO shall explain to the Respondent the obligation and the advantages of full cooperation in providing information and materials relevant to the Inquiry/Investigation of the Complaint. This or a subsequent letter shall identify the Inquiry Team members and their affiliations, and provide notice of the Respondent’s responsibilities to provide evidence, to maintain confidentiality, and to cooperate with the conduct of an Inquiry and/or Investigation. The letter should note that refusal to produce research records upon request may constitute evidence of Research Misconduct (see Sections IV. and V.B1). The letter should also provide notice of the following rights of the Respondent during the Inquiry: 1. To challenge any member of the Inquiry Team for failure to meet the criteria in Section VI.B.; 2. To consult with appropriate University committees and private legal counsel; 3. To submit a written response to the Complaint and to have his/her comments provided to the Inquiry Team to accompany the Inquiry Report; 4. To be notified of the outcome of the Inquiry, and receive a copy of the Inquiry Report. 5. To comment on the Inquiry Report and have those comments accompany the report when forwarded to the VCR. B. Appointment of an Inquiry Team If the Dean decides that an Inquiry should be conducted, the Dean, in consultation with the RIO, will appoint an Inquiry Team of two individuals who have no potential or actual conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have appropriate qualifications to evaluate the matters at issue. Whenever feasible, the Inquiry Team shall consist of one tenured faculty member from the unit in which the Respondent holds a primary appointment, or in which the conduct in question has occurred, and one tenured faculty member from elsewhere within the University. The Dean may appoint a third faculty member or an academic professional to the team. Any exception to the designated composition of the Inquiry Team shall be made only for good cause and with the approval of the Chancellor. C. Challenge The Respondent may object to any proposed member of the Inquiry Team on the sole ground that the person does not meet the criteria. The objection to a Team member must be made in writing by the Respondent and delivered to the Dean within 10 calendar days after receipt of the notice of appointment. The Dean shall have the discretion to approve or deny such challenges and decisions thereon are final. D. Charge to the Team and First Meeting The RIO, after consultation with the Dean(s) and UEO, will prepare a charge for the Inquiry Team that: 1. Sets forth the time for completion of the Inquiry; 8 26 2. Describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the Complaint assessment; 3. States that the purpose of the Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence, including the testimony of the Respondent, Complainant, and key witnesses, and to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence of Research Misconduct to warrant an Investigation; 4. States that an Investigation is warranted if the Inquiry Team determines: (1) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Complaint falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and is within the jurisdictional criteria of this Policy; and (2) the Complaint may have substance, based on the Team’s review during the Inquiry. 5. Informs the Inquiry Team members that they are responsible for preparing, or directing the preparation of, a written report of the Inquiry that meets the requirements of this Policy. E. Admission and Agreed Statement of Facts. If at any time during the proceedings under this Policy, the Respondent provides a written statement of facts and/or admits in writing to the facts alleged in the Complaint that constitute Research Misconduct, the VCR shall decide whether to order an immediate Investigation, in lieu of continuing the Inquiry. If an Investigation is ordered, the Respondent’s agreed statement of the facts will serve as the Inquiry Report. The RIO shall keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit later assessment. F. RIO Assistance to Inquiry Team. The RIO shall convene the first meeting of the Inquiry Team, review the allegations of the Complaint, and describe the procedures for conducting an Inquiry. The RIO shall be available to advise the Team. G. Inquiry Process The Inquiry Team will normally interview the Respondent, the Complainant (if known), and key witnesses; examine relevant research records and materials; consult experts in the field; and take such other steps as are in their judgment appropriate to the Inquiry. Then the Inquiry Team will evaluate the evidence, including the testimony obtained during the Inquiry. After consultation with the RIO, the Inquiry Team will recommend whether, in its opinion, there is sufficient credible evidence of Research Misconduct to warrant an Investigation based on the criteria in this Policy. I. The Inquiry Report 1. Contents. The Inquiry Team shall prepare a written Inquiry Report that includes the following information: (1) the name and position of the Respondent; (2) a description of the allegations of Research Misconduct; (3) findings of fact and a clear, detailed description of the evidence upon which those findings are based; (4) the basis for recommending or failing to recommend that alleged actions warrant an Investigation. 9 27 University Counsel should review the report for legal sufficiency. Content modifications should be made as appropriate in consultation with the RIO and the Inquiry Team. The Inquiry report should also include: the names and titles of the committee members; a summary of the Inquiry process; a list of the research records reviewed; a list of witnesses; and whether the Inquiry Team recommends any other actions to be taken if an Investigation is not recommended. The RIO shall assist the Team to ensure that the Report conforms to the requirements of this Policy. If the Team recommends an Investigation, it may make it may make other relevant recommendations, such as to the scope of the Investigation it deems appropriate. 2. Timeline and Distribution of Draft Report. Within 60 calendar days after Notice to Respondent set forth in Section VI.A is delivered, the Inquiry Team shall send the Inquiry Report to the Dean with a copy to the RIO. The RIO will deliver a copy of the report to the VCR, the Respondent, and other appropriate parties. If additional time is needed for the completion of the Report, the RIO will submit a written request to the Chancellor. The request for extension shall set forth the length of the extension requested and the reason for the request. The RIO will notify the Respondent and other parties of the extension request. The Chancellor has the sole discretion to approve or reject the requested extension. If approved, the Chancellor’s approval of and the cause for extension will be included as part of the Inquiry Report. The RIO will notify the Respondent of the Chancellor’s determination. 3. Comments by Respondent The Respondent may, within 10 calendar days of receipt, submit written comments to the VCR. J. Decision by VCR. Within 10 calendar days after receiving both the Final Report and written comments of the Respondent, if any, the VCR shall determine whether to order an Investigation, close the case, or take other appropriate action under this Policy. 1. If the VCR closes the case, the RIO will make sure that all reference to the matter is expunged from the Respondent's personnel file. The Respondent, the UEO, the Complainant, and all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed of the Complaint shall be notified in writing that the charges have been dropped. If the VCR decides that an Investigation is not warranted, the RIO shall secure and maintain for 7 years after the termination of the Inquiry sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later assessment. 2. If the VCR orders an Investigation, the Respondent and the Complainant shall be so informed in writing, and reminded of the obligation to cooperate with the Investigation. The RIO will notify appropriate campus administrators, including the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Dean, and the Respondent’s UEO; and may as necessary notify Respondent’s collaborators, external sponsors; and appropriate governmental agencies. 10 28 Within 30 calendar days of the VCR’s determination, the RIO will provide the Office of Research Integrity or other agencies with the written finding of the VCR and a copy of the Inquiry Report and addenda. VII. THE INVESTIGATION A. Rights of the Respondent During the Investigation The Respondent has the right to be notified in writing of the allegations to be investigated within 30 calendar days after the determination that an Investigation is warranted, but before the Investigation begins. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with a letter, informing the Respondent of his/her responsibility to appear before the Investigation Panel to present information and respond to the allegations. The contents of the letter shall include the names of the Panel members, a written charge, including all allegations to be investigated, and a list of the Respondent’s rights in the Investigation, as follows: 1. To be notified in writing of any new allegations, not addressed in the Inquiry or in the initial notice of Investigation, within a reasonable time after the determination to pursue those allegations; 2. To be interviewed during the Investigation, have the opportunity to correct transcripts of the interview, if made, and have recordings or transcripts, if made, included in the record of the Investigation; 3. To have interviewed during the Investigation any witness whom the Panel determines has been reasonably identified by the Respondent as having information on relevant aspects of the Investigation. 4. To submit written statements to the Panel; 5. To be accompanied by personal legal counsel or any advisor of choice; 6. To receive a copy of the Investigation Report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to the evidence on which the Report is based, and be notified that any comments must be submitted within 30 calendar days of the date on which the Report was received and that the comments will be included with the final version of the Report. 7. Adequate time (10 calendar days) to review and respond to the Investigation Report. B. Appointment of the Investigation Panel Within 15 calendar days after the Respondent has been notified of the Investigation, the VCR, in consultation with the RIO, shall appoint an Investigation Panel. The Panel shall consist of three persons, each of whom shall be a tenured faculty member or an academic professional. At least one member shall be a tenured faculty member. Whenever feasible, one appointee will be from the unit in which the Respondent holds primary appointment, one will be from elsewhere in the University, and one from outside the University. No member of the Inquiry Team may 11 29 serve on the Investigation Panel. A tenured University faculty member who is not from the unit in which the Respondent holds primary appointment will chair the Panel. 1. Qualifications of Panel. Panel members shall have the following qualifications: a. Lack of bias or conflict of interest, the latter to be determined under the principles of the University Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment. In the case of a potential bias or conflict, the Chancellor’s decision shall be final as to whether such a bias or conflict exists that could affect the outcome of the Investigation; b. Judicious temperament; c. Willingness to serve and adequate time to devote to the work; d. Sufficient academic training and experience to understand and judge the allegations of Misconduct. 2. Challenge to Panel. The Respondent may object to any proposed member of the Panel on the sole ground that the person does not meet the qualifications. The objection must be made in writing and delivered in 10 calendar days to the VCR upon receipt of notice of the appointment. The VCR shall have the discretion to approve or deny such challenges, and decisions thereon are final. C. Subject Matter of the Investigation The VCR, in consultation with the RIO, shall set the scope of the Investigation based upon the Complaint and the Inquiry Report (including Respondent’s Comments) in a written charge to the Investigation Panel. If during the Investigation, new information comes to light that affects the scope of the Investigation, the VCR will determine whether the Panel should continue with its original charge, amend the scope of the Investigation, or commence a new Investigation. New information that could substantially change the scope of the Investigation shall be promptly addressed. The Respondent will be informed if the scope of the Investigation changes substantially. D. Charge to the Investigation Panel and the First Meeting 1. Charge to the Investigation Panel The VCR will define the subject matter of the Investigation in a written charge to the Panel that: a. Describes the allegations and related issues identified during the Inquiry; b. Identifies the Respondent; c. Informs the Panel that it must conduct the Investigation as prescribed in this Policy; d. Informs the Panel that it must evaluate the evidence and testimony to determine whether sufficient credible evidence exists, Research Misconduct occurred and, if so, the type and extent of it and who was responsible; e. Informs the Panel that it must prepare or direct the preparation of a written Investigation report that meets the requirements of this Policy. 12 30 2. First Meeting The RIO will convene the first meeting of the Investigation Panel to review the charge, the Inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the Investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific Investigation plan. The Investigation Panel will be provided with a copy of this Policy. The RIO will be present or available throughout the Investigation to advise the Investigation Panel as needed. E. Proceedings The Investigation Panel shall interview the Respondent and any witness who has been reasonably identified, including witnesses identified by the Respondent, as having relevant information. Transcripts of oral interviews, if made, shall be provided to the respective interviewee for corrections and shall be preserved as part of the record of the case. F. Contents of the Investigation Panel Report. Within 100 calendar days after the first meeting, the Panel shall present its written Investigation Report to the RIO. The RIO shall assist the Investigation Panel to ensure that the report conforms to the requirements of this Policy. The Report shall 1. Provide the name and position of the Respondent; 2. Summarize the allegations of Research Misconduct subject to the Investigation; 3. Describe the investigative process; 4. Contain explicit findings of fact with respect to each Complaint in the Panel's charge; 5. List the evidence bearing on each finding and summaries of any interviews; 6. State the Panel's conclusions as to whether any of the proven allegations constitutes a violation of this Policy; 7. Provide the names and titles of the Panel members and experts who conducted the Investigation. If the Panel concludes that the Respondent engaged in Research Misconduct as alleged, the Report may recommend what sanctions, if any, should be imposed upon the Respondent and what corrective action, if any, should be taken. University counsel should review the report for legal sufficiency. Modifications should be made as appropriate in consultation with the RIO and the Investigation panel. G. Comments by the Respondent Upon receipt from the Panel, the RIO shall send a copy of the Investigation Report to the Respondent. The Respondent may submit written comments to the RIO within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Report. H. Submission to the VCR. 13 31 Within 120 calendar days after the first Investigation Panel Meeting, the RIO will submit the Investigation Report (with Respondent Comments, if any) to the VCR. The VCR may consult with the Dean, RIO and others prior to accepting the Report as Final. The RIO will send the Final Report to the Respondent. I. Decision by the Chancellor The VCR shall promptly transmit the Final Report and the VCR’s recommendations to the Chancellor together with the comments of the Respondent, if any. 1. The Chancellor, after consultation with the VCR, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dean, and others as appropriate, shall decide the final disposition of the case. The decision shall be promptly communicated to the Respondent. If the Chancellor determines that the Complaint has not been proven, the case will be terminated as provided in this Policy, and the RIO will so notify the Respondent, Complainant, UEO, and all persons who have been interviewed or otherwise informed of the charges 2. If the Chancellor determines that the Complaint has been proven, sanctions may be imposed to the extent permitted by the University Statutes, General Rules, and University policies. The Chancellor has the sole discretion whether to impose sanctions and is not obligated to follow the Investigation Report in that regard. The Chancellor may also prescribe corrective actions and take any other action deemed appropriate. The RIO shall notify the Dean and UEO of any sanctions imposed and/or other actions taken. J. Appeal The Chancellor is the final adjudicator of all allegations of Research Misconduct that arise at the campus level, subject only to an appeal to the President on procedural grounds. Appeals must be made in writing and filed in the President’s Office within 14 calendar days after Respondent receives written notice of the Chancellor's decision. The sole matter to be raised on appeal shall be whether proceedings conducted in Respondent’s case deviated from law or policy to the extent that Respondent was denied fundamental fairness. The President shall within 30 calendar days either affirm or vacate the Chancellor's decision. K. Notice to Third Parties The Chancellor will decide whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, journal editors, Respondent’s collaborators, or other concerned parties, including the Complainant, should be notified of the outcome of a case. The RIO will be responsible for compliance with any notice requirements of sponsors or funding agencies. L. Termination of University Employment The termination of Respondent’s University employment, by resignation or otherwise, after commencement of the proceedings described herein, shall not cause termination of such proceedings. M. Protection of the Complainant, Witnesses, and Other Participants 14 32 During the Research Misconduct proceeding and upon its completion, regardless of whether the institution or a federal agency determines that Research Misconduct occurred, the RIO, the UEO(s), the Dean(s), and all other persons involved in administering these procedures will undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to protect the position and reputation of, or to counter potential or actual retaliation against, any Complainant who made allegations of Research Misconduct in good faith and of any witnesses and committee members who cooperate in good faith with the Research Misconduct proceeding. N. Unfounded Cases Bringing unfounded charges motivated by malice constitutes a violation of the purposes and standards for ethical conduct that underlie this document. It shall be a violation of this Policy for any person to bring a charge of Research Misconduct who knows or has reason to know that the charge is unsupported by facts. In cases where no Misconduct is found, all Reports will include a finding whether there was a reasonable basis in fact for making allegations. If at any stage in the proceedings it is determined that the original unfounded allegations or testimony of any person associated with the university was motivated by ill will, that shall be communicated to the Chancellor. The Chancellor may enter a finding of malicious conduct in the person's personnel file or academic record and communicate the finding to the person's UEO. Such a finding may be the basis for disciplinary action or other personnel action in accordance with University rules and policies. O. Record Keeping After termination of a case and all ensuing related actions, the RIO shall prepare a complete file, including all research records, evidence reviewed and original records of all research misconduct proceedings, including transcripts or recordings of any interviews if made, and copies of all relevant documents. The RIO shall seal the file and retain it for seven years. The file shall be made available only to external agencies as required, but may otherwise be made available for good cause by the Chancellor, such as under court order, or for use in a subsequent Misconduct proceeding involving the Respondent. Upon expiration of the seven-year term, the RIO shall return all original materials to the persons who furnished them and destroy the file, unless the RIO makes a specific written finding that there is good cause to retain the file for an additional period. The Respondent shall receive either a notice that the file has been destroyed, or a copy of the RIO’s decision that the file will be retained. 15 33 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO Center for Literacy (MC 147) 1040 West Harrison Street Chicago, Illinois 60607-7133 April 7, 2009 Dr. Eliot R. Kaufman, Chair Senate Executive Committee Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics Room 1012 MBRB MC 669 Dear Elliot: The Senate Research Committee met today and discussed the proposed Policy and Procedures on Academic Integrity in Research and Publication per your request. Although some members of the committee expressed concerns about what appeared to them to be too much latitude given to deans and the chancellor, no alternative procedures were proposed, and the committee members were assured that in practice the Deans and Chancellor largely accept the findings of the faculty committees and carry these duties out in an appropriately consultative manner. Overall, the work is impressive and goes a long way towards ensuring both an effective institutional commitment to academic integrity and appropriate protections for the rights of complainants and the accused. We believe that the document should be approved by the UIC Senate and that it should be the new governing procedures for dealing with accusations of breeches of academic integrity. Thank you for sharing this with us. Sincerely yours, Timothy Shanahan Chair, UIC Senate Research Committee UIC Phone (312) 413-1914 • Fax (312) 413-8083 34 Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (SCAFT) April 23, 2009 SCAFT is the body identified in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph g. of the University Statutes to exercise the functions required by the University of Illinois Statutes (Article X, Section 1e and 2d) regarding the holdings of hearings and the making of recommendations to appropriate administrators in instances of alleged violation of academic freedom of members of the academic staff, or dismissal of tenured faculty members, and of dismissal of nontenured faculty members and other members of the academic staff prior to the expiration of a member’s contract. The current SCAFT members have not been involved in a hearing process for some time. Accordingly, SCAFT will meet on April 29, 2009 with Patricia Gill, Associate Chancellor for Access and Equity. Dr. Gill will discuss with SCAFT the procedures for holding hearings that are in common practice in the setting of other grievance policies. For the committee, Alan Schwartz, Chair 35 REPORT OF THE SENATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ILLINOIS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL The FAC here reports on two meetings. The first at Chicago State Univ. in March and the second in Springfield with the IBHE in April. I have included in this report the Executive Summary of the “Public Agenda for College and Career Success” which I mentioned in the last senate report. I urge senators to read this document carefully and please raise with me questions about it that I might bring to the FAC and/or the IBHE (dbardack@uic.edu). The idea for a public agenda was initiated by the state legislature and developed by a “cast of several hundred” individuals and some organizations deeply involved with higher ed. The 4 goals and associated recommendations will be driving forces in the maintenance, development and change in higher ed. in Illinois at least over the next decade. The allocation of state funds, selections of programs and capital construction will emerge from commitments of the public agenda. In addition to the basic document itself, I have included some further explanatory material which the board used to explain the agenda’s purpose and function. At the April session of the IBHE, the meeting was conducted under a new type of agenda which will be followed at future sessions. Important issues in higher education…such as affordability, accountability, dual credit, assessment, program review etc. will be discussed at each meeting. There will likely be a speaker to present the topic and besides commentary and questions from board members each of the advisory committees, including, of course, the faculty group will have the opportunity to speak to the issues. Specialists on a particular topic will likely introduce the session. This may well be an important forum in which issues pertinent to higher ed in the state can be discussed and recommendations, perhaps including “best practices,” developed. We hope that an understanding of what higher ed. is…its immediate and long range values....can be demonstrated to legislators and the public. The speaker who laid the ground work at the April session was Pat Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education addressed, “Aligning State Funding with the Goals of the Public Agenda. He noted the need to connect an agenda focused on outcomes with the state’s policy infrastructure. He spoke about how to get more people into higher ed and have them complete a degree and how to make college affordable. He noted state demographics show more and more students from groups with least resources need higher ed. We need a better communication strategy with the pubic and legislators. Institutions will need to be innovative and decide what can be developed and what can be dropped. A rather wide ranging discussion followed. Later Don Sevener, the IBHE’s legislative representative spoke with optimism about the legislature’s and governor’s support for higher ed. The FAC had lunch and an extended discussion with Carrie Hightman, chair of the IBHE, Judy Erwin, exec. director and many of the board members and board staff. It was perhaps the best lunch the FAC has had with board members in that accusations of low faculty work loads, lack of interest in students etc. were not raised. We spoke to many issues. Ms Erwin and Trustee Washington were interested in finding ways that faculty could be more involved in the public agenda as well as at the discussions at board meetings. Greater use of faculty research, business and economic program administration etc. were noted. My Urbana colleague suggested that the IBHE use graduate students as interns in various programs at the board. I stressed the need for the board/FAC to speak clearly and in detail to the role that higher education plays in a complex, modern society and that a degree is not simply a “license” to a particular kind of life long employment. Furthermore faculty need to explain how higher ed. differs from high school and that education is more than “training” and has long term payoffs. We spoke to the role of 36 our document, “Education as a Public Good.” With the board we agreed that more will have to be done to make faculty aware of the Public Agenda and the role it can play. We noted the report of an ad hoc group that met in February under the auspices of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Ed. This group of 17 from major national higher ed. groups met and drafted a statement, “The Challenge to States: Preserving College Access and Affordability in a time of Crisis.” There is a set of principles and recommendations. You can view it at their website, www.highereducation.org. But I want to note a couple of recommendations under the heading “productivity.” In order to meet productivity expectations institutions might increase teaching loads for full-time faculty, freeze or reduce graduate and professional enrollments, streamline administrative functions, close low demand, high cost programs not supported by economic or labor market needs, require institutions to report data on performance of all programs…costs, enrollments, degrees awarded, attrition rates, and develop accelerated learning options. Overall this statement is more rigid and economics driven than many academic institutions might approve. At the Chicago State Univ. meeting with board staff, Dianne Bazell, deputy director for academic affairs and student success, we discussed several ways in which FAC and univ./coll. faculty could participate in board discussions and development of the public agenda. We are particularly concerned about preparing for IBHE meetings when the agenda comes out less than 2 weeks before the meeting especially if we are to focus on some major issue related to the public agenda. We also spoke with Mike Baumgartner, deputy director for fiscal affairs about the governor’s budget which had just been released. Some of our time was devoted to subcommittee meetings on statements we expect to make to legislative/public groups and reports on dual credit, assessment, and progress of groups( not in the FAC ) working through the American Diploma Project (mentioned in my last report) on standards in English Language Arts, and math. A science standards team will soon be formed. Two other sets of materials presented at the IBHE meeting concern current legislative action related to higher ed. and the governor’s higher ed. budget. Rather than include the 24 page higher ed. budget, I’ll present a few data points. First there is, right now, a $12.4B state budget shortfall between this year and next. Illinois may expect $2.055B from the federal Fiscal Stabilization Fund. This may be used in elementary, secondary and higher ed. Public colls/univs could receive $119M from this fund. Some will be used for “catch-up” from 2006 funding. Overall, not counting SURS, the governor’s budget includes $2.2B for higher ed. a 1.8% increase over 2009. After the 2009 2.5% reduction, the 2010 general fund appropriations would increase by $82.5M or 3.8%. $350,000 is included for the P-20 student information system allowing the state to trace students thru their academic careers. Thus although a student may not graduate from the institution at which he started, but might graduate from another institution, we would have the first measures of actual individual progress. The capital budget proposal proposes more than $1B for higher ed. The governor’s higher ed. budget for operations, grants and capital improvements can be seen at the IBHE website (www.ibhe.org) under the April IBHE agenda. While the legislature is still in session a number of bills are of interest to the senate. A pension reform act was signed by the governor. It affects all pension systems. The chair of the board of trustees of SURS will now be the chair of the IBHE who is currently Carrie Hightman. The new SURS board, all new members will include 4 trustees appointed by the governor, 4 active participants in the system elected by contributing membership and 2 annuitants elected by the annuitants of the system. The senate approved a P-20 longitudinal education data system (see earlier in this report). This is related to PA goals 1, 2, 3. The house approved a bill codifying standards for dual credit affecting public and private 2 and 4 year institutions. At least half-a-dozen other bills directly related to the public agenda are in progress. These include an Advanced Science Zone Act establishing financial programs spurring 37 economic development, a bill to enroll high school dropouts to complete high school degrees, and a mental health graduate scholarship program for students who agree to work in human services in Illinois. ____________________________________________________________________________ Note: the format of the following is somewhat altered from the original which may also be read at the IBHE website. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Public Agenda for College and Career Success is the product of a yearlong planning process initiated by the Illinois General Assembly and conducted by the Public Agenda Task Force and the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE). The Illinois Board of Higher Education, which has statutory responsibility for master planning, was directed by House Joint Resolution 69 to create a task force to study the challenges and opportunities facing the postsecondary education in Illinois, the state’s workforce needs, demographic trends, and higher education funding and student financial aid. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), a nonprofit public policy research center based in Boulder, Colorado, has provided counsel, research, and technical assistance for the planning process. The Public Agenda Task Force, appointed by the Governor and chaired by IBHE Chairwoman Carrie J. Hightman, was directed to develop an action agenda, based on quantifiable evidence, to address the urgent educational, workforce, social, and economic needs of the State by setting priorities, developing policies, and allocating resources. The Public Agenda Task Force embraced five principles to guide its deliberations on a master plan for higher education: Higher education is a public good and, therefore, a public responsibility. Priorities, policies, and budgets should align with state goals. The unique missions of institutions and of higher education sectors – public, private, two-year, and four-year – should be supported while also aligning with state goals. Adequate and equitable funding, deployed effectively and efficiently, is essential for the entire preschool-to-graduate school – or, P-20 – spectrum. A comprehensive P-20 student information system is vital. What the Task Force found was a tale of two states of Illinois. One is prosperous; the other is struggling. One is well educated; the other lags in educational attainment. One is 38 economically vibrant; the other is economically stagnant. Between these two states is a prosperity gap that is wide and growing and the direct result of disparities in educational attainment by race, ethnicity, income, and region. Clear and compelling trends and conditions, which affect all Illinoisans, demand an action agenda for the State of Illinois: Illinois’ population is aging and becoming rapidly and dramatically more diverse. Competition for jobs is now global with the majority of the fastest-growing and highest-paid jobs requiring at least some postsecondary education and a college credential or degree. The growth of nontraditional students and students of racial and ethnic diversity and those with disabilities are altering the face of postsecondary education. There is a convergence between the state’s economic needs and what higher education can provide – knowledge, skills, training, entrepreneurialism, and the ability to work in diverse settings. Large disparities exist in educational attainment by race/ethnicity, income, disability, and region. Affordability of a college education is in jeopardy. The Public Agenda was developed through a transparent and collaborative process involving hundreds of stakeholders in the P-20 system: legislators, students, faculty, administrators, trustees, labor and business groups, state agencies, and civic leaders throughout Illinois. The Task Force met formally six times at independent institutions, sponsored regional forums at 17 community colleges, and conducted hearings at six public universities. On November 21, 2008, the Task Force unanimously endorsed the Public Agenda for College and Career Success. A Vision for Illinois The Public Agenda for College and Career Success is the pathway to one Illinois, where all residents have affordable access to high-quality educational opportunities that prepare them for the jobs of the present and the future. Its populace will be among the best educated in the world. It will be one of the five most affordable states in the nation in which to pursue a college education. It will have a well-educated workforce with the skills and competencies to compete in the modern economy. It will rank among the five top states in economic growth and vitality. To achieve this vision the Public Agenda will advance four goals: Goal 1: Increase educational attainment to match best-performing U.S. states and world countries. Recommendation 1: Increase success of students at each stage of the P-20 educational pipeline to eliminate achievement gaps by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, and disability. Recommendation 2: Increase the number of adults, including GED recipients, 39 reentering education and completing a postsecondary credential. Recommendation 3: Reduce geographic disparities in educational attainment. Goal 2: Ensure college affordability for students, families, and taxpayers. Recommendation: Make Illinois one of the five most affordable states in the country measured in terms of a) the percent of family income required to pay net cost of attendance for low- and middle-income families, and b) the average amount of debt per undergraduate student. Goal 3: Increase the number of quality postsecondary credentials to meet the demands of the economy and an increasingly global society. Recommendation 1: Increase the number of people with quality postsecondary credentials to ensure the state has an educated workforce and an engaged citizenry. Recommendation 2: Improve transitions all along the educational pipeline, including from adult education to postsecondary education, from remedial classes to credit-bearing coursework, and from associate to baccalaureate degree levels. Recommendation 3: Increase the number of postsecondary degrees in fields of critical skills shortages, such as, initially, nursing, allied health, and information technology. Goal 4: Better integrate Illinois’ educational, research, and innovation assets to meet economic needs of the state and its regions. Recommendation: Boost Illinois into the ranks of the five states with the fastest growing economies through cutting-edge research, technology transfer, workforce training, innovation education, and a culture of entrepreneurship. The Public Agenda is an organic document, a plan that will evolve as it is implemented. It also is a plan that will produce documented evidence of progress through annual performance reports. In addition, the Illinois Board of Higher Education commits to a formal five-year review of the Public Agenda to gauge its success and need for modification In the spring 2007, the Illinois General Assembly adopted House Joint Resolution 69, directing the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) to develop a Public Agenda for higher education and the state. The Governor appointed a Task Force to guide the planning process. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) was commissioned to collect and analyze demographic, economic, and educational data and assist the Task Force in developing an action agenda to meet the state’s urgent educational and workforce needs. From the beginning, the Task Force was committed to an open, transparent, and collaborative process. The Task Force held six official meetings and convened working 40 groups to shape the Public Agenda goals. The Task Force conducted regional public forums at 17 community colleges throughout the state where nearly 700 people offered insights and suggestions on the state’s educational and economic challenges. The Task Force also held briefings for a variety of stakeholders, including presidents and trustees from all higher education sectors, business executives, labor representatives, civic leaders, elected officials, and faculty and students. The Task Force sponsored public hearings at six public universities across the state to receive feedback on the preliminary Public Agenda, and created a special web portal for interested groups or individuals to comment. Finally, while the Task Force numbered 25 members, an advisory group of interested constituents and stakeholders who attended various meetings, briefings, and forums totaled nearly 1,000 individuals. What did we learn? Strengthen P-20 connections. There needs to be a greater alignment between what is taught in the P-12 system and what is expected that students will know for postsecondary success. Stronger P-20 links are needed to improve the quality of teaching and learning to obviate the need for collegiate remediation. Supporting improved access and participation in preschool education programs provides long-term improvements in educational development and success. Secondary schools must prepare students for life beyond high school through a rigorous curriculum that readies them for college and careers. Senior institutions and community colleges must work closely to smooth the articulation and transfer of credits for baccalaureate completion. Meet students where they are – educationally, socially, geographically, and financially. Course load requirements and financial aid rules must account for the needs of working students. Assistive technologies must be available for disabled students. Institutions must recognize the special needs of low-income students for child care, transportation, and other costs. Place-bound students need education to come to them. Remedial education is an asset for returning adult students, but a costly redundancy for those fresh out of high school. Remedial education needs to be improved while working to make it unnecessary for recent high school graduates. Mentoring, education and career planning, and improved adult and parent involvement with first generation and underachieving students can reduce the achievement gap and keep students on track for a college credential. Adult basic skills, English-as-a-Second Language (ESL), and GED courses need to reflect cross cutting competencies and workforce development skills. Get serious about affordability. Dwindling state support for colleges and universities has resulted in significant tuition increases. The buying power of a Monetary Award Programs (MAP) grant has diminished as state financial aid has failed to keep pace with tuition increases. One-quarter of students eligible for MAP are denied aid because of funding shortfalls. Middle-income students increasingly rely on loans to finance college. Textbook costs rival the cost of tuition at some community colleges and higher transportation expenses present additional financial burdens. Rising tuition forces 41 students to work more hours, often extending their time-to-degree and total educational costs. Increasing dual credit offerings – in which high school students take college courses – can provide college credit at no cost to the high school students preparing for college. Forge partnerships for workforce development and job creation. Community and economic development groups must work with higher education to expand academic programs to meet critical workforce shortages and to create or expand enterprises to produce new jobs. Postsecondary institutions and employers should better collaborate to ensure workforce training produces the skills and competencies required in the 21st century workplace. Regional planning focused on the available jobs and needed skills must include higher education and secondary educators to ensure adequate workforce preparation. Partnerships should develop career pathways, focused on high-wage, high-demand fields and sensitive to the needs of those who must combine work with postsecondary education. The Public Agenda for College and Career Success is an ambitious but achievable blueprint to one Illinois, where all residents have affordable access to high-quality educational opportunities that prepare them for the jobs of the present and the future. Respectfully submitted: David Bardack UIC Representative to the FAC/IBHE April 23, 2009 42 Report on the State Universities Retirement System Members Advisory Committee (SURSMAC) meeting on Tuesday April 14. The meeting started with a presentation by Judith Parker, the interim executive director. The previous executive director, Dan Slack, resigned at the end of 2008 to take the CEO position at the Colorado Fire and Police Pension Association. Much of her presentation was devoted to the impact of recent legislation, both actual and proposed, as well as Governor Quinn's budget proposals. Governor Quinn signed Public Act 96-0006 into law on April 3, 2009. This act: Fired the executive director of the Teachers Retirement System, who has now resigned. Dissolved the boards of the public pension systems. The new SURS board will have some elected members. The procedures for the election are currently being developed by the SURS staff. (They will be posted soon on the SURS website.) The new chair of the board will be Carrie J. Hightman who is also chair of the IBHE. One obvious problem with this action by the Governor is the loss of institutional memory. As a result of the dissolution of the board, the search for a new executive director has been put on hold. Judith Parker stated that she is not a candidate for the position. She expressed concern that both SURS and TRS would be searching for new executive directors at the same time. Ms. Parker remarked that the general assembly returns on April 21, and might take up further legislation that would affect SURS. In particular the proposed consolidation of the investment operations of the retirement systems, while not being actively pushed at the moment could resurface. The Governor's budget has several proposals that would impact current and future faculty and staff. The most striking is the suggestion that current employees pay an extra 2% of salary into SURS. What is odd about this proposal is that it would do very little to make up for the state's underfunding of SURS. Furthermore, there is some thought that this would not be legal. While it is not in any current proposed legislation, it is something that we should view with obvious concern. The Governor also proposed that new employees not be able to retire until age 62 (early) and 67 (normal retirement), as opposed to the current ages of 55 and 60 respectively. In addition he proposed that (again for new employees) the cost of living adjustment built into SURS pensions would be significantly reduced, and that the pension would be based on the 70% of the average of the final 8 years of base salary. However new hires would pay 1% less to SURS. The Governor also proposed a "funding holiday", i.e. the state would not make its payment ($105M) to SURS for the 4th quarter of this fiscal year. SURS has pointed out 43 that the state has to pay its share of the Self-Managed-Plans. He has also proposed that in FY 2010 only normal contributions would be made, i.e. no catch up contributions. Ms. Parker also summarized other proposed legislation. The SURS board set the interest rate for FY 2010 at 8%, while the Comptroller's office set the rate for the money purchase formula at 7.5%. Daniel L. Allen, the SURS Chief Investment Officer then gave a presentation on the fund's investment performance. From a high of $16B, SURS investments are now worth $10B. This is comparable to, indeed slightly better than, the performance at other retirement funds. 22 year average return is 8%. However there is an active debate in the pension community on the correct levels of projected long term return. Is 7.5% still viable? This is being reviewed by the auditors and actuaries. The $10B figure does not reflect unrealized losses in private equity investments. He believes that the worst is behind us. This is a particularly bad time to for SURS to be underfunded since it has to liquidate investments at low prices in order to meet its obligations. Furthermore, it would be a good time to invest. The investment strategy continues to be fine tuned: SURS is moving money from equities to private equity, infrastructure and real estate. Because of the drop in the value of equities, SURS needs to rebalance its portfolio, selling TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) and buying equities. There has been a slight delay in the rebalancing process because of liquidity issues with TIPS. The SURSMAC membership discussed the need to counter the impression in the press, and business community that our pensions are a luxury rather than an obligation. The committee voted on two resolutions, which are attached. Respectfully submitted: Henri Gillet, UIC Representative to the State Universities Retirement System Members Advisory Committee (SURSMAC) April 23, 2009 44 Adopted April 14, 2009 SURSMAC Resolution on Proposed Consolidation of Pension Investment Systems Whereas, The proposal by Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias to merge the investment functions of the state-funded retirement systems has been introduced in the legislature this year (SB 1734); Whereas, The issues raised by the Treasurer concerning ethics issues have been addressed in other legislation proposed this year such as HB3722; Whereas, The SURS Board* strongly supports ethics standards and transparency and recommends that these issues be addressed separately from any proposal to mix trust fund assets and combine investment functions; Whereas, The SURS Board* has noted that the Commingling Proposal (1) increases the risk of improper conduct; (2) will not result in savings for SURS; and (3) ignores SURS’ responsibilities for the Self-Managed Plan (SMP); Resolved, That SURSMAC supports legislation that will strengthen the ethics provisions and transparency for those administering the state-funded pensions systems and will apply to SURS as well as the other systems; and Resolved, That SURSMAC recommends that any proposal to mix trust fund assets should exclude SURS given its record of low cost, high performance, risk appropriate investment. * See the January 2009 Report from the SURS Board on “Concerns About Commingling SURS’ Pension Trust Funds” available at http://www.surs.org/pdfs/invinfo/Commingling.pdf ); 45 Adopted April 14, 2009 SURSMAC Resolution on the Need to Protect the Current Pension System for Employees of Public Colleges and Universities Whereas, The State of Illinois has significantly underfunded its pension systems by legislative and gubernatorial decisions from FY 1981 to FY 1991 and FY 2006 to FY 2009 creating an unfunded liability of over $ 54.4B as of June, 2008, the largest dollar amount in the nation; The state’s contribution to public faculty and staff’s benefits is less than in most states because it does not contribute the FICA tax of 7.65%; The State’s contribution to the SURS pension system is equivalent to a private sector employer providing social security and approximately 3.35% of salaries into a retirement program such as TIAA/CREF; Illinois faculty at public institutions fall behind their IBHE comparison peer groups in benefits; Participants have continually paid their full share to the retirement system and the interest on their contributions served to decrease the state’s liability for pension shortfalls; Failure of the state to make its mandated contributions is the dominant cause of the shortfall in full funding of the state pension systems; The Governor’s proposals would exacerbate the gap in benefits between Illinois public institutions and other colleges and universities competing to hire away top quality faculty; The budget proposal offered by the governor calls for rewriting existing law on funding of pensions to continue the underfunding of state pension debts; That SURSMAC calls upon the legislature and governor to recognize the necessity of fully funding its pension obligations in amounts established in existing state law; That the legislature and governor recognize the negative impact on retention of faculty and staff by requiring any increase in contributions from current employees, thus further widening the gap in salaries and total compensation compared to peer institutions as documented by AAUP surveys and current IBHE reports available to the faculty; Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas: Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Resolved, Resolved: 46 Resolved: That the state undertake the necessary steps which must include revenue enhancement to enable the state to remain solvent and meet its obligations to participants in the pension system, and That SURSMAC urges its members and faculty, staff and students to contact legislators personally to stress the need to deal with this issue of unmet pension obligations. Resolved: