PPM 9-10, Due Process/Definition of Terms
Responsible Office: Academic Affairs
1.0 PURPOSE
The definitions herein have been accepted by the University to apply to the various terms used in describing the procedures of academic due process as outlined in PPMs 9-9 through 9-17.
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 PPM 1-13, Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws
2.2 PPM Section 9, Academic Freedom, Rights, Responsibilities, and Due Process3.0 DEFINITIONS
3.1 Complainant – Any individual or group (e.g., faculty member, administrator, student, investigative team, etc.) who registers a complaint or files a formal charge, as permitted under PPM 9-11. The individual who registers the complaint need not also be the individual who files an associated formal charge.
3.2 Administrative Disposition – The resolution of a complaint made at any stage of the proceedings in which a responsible administrator resolves the matter with the agreement of the parties. An administrative disposition must be acceptable to both the respondent and the complainant and must fall within the range of disciplinary actions contained in PPM 9-14.
3.3 Administrative Officer – A faculty member, administrator, or other individual designated by the president and confirmed by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate to represent the University during the informal and formal hearing processes. This person shall serve as a neutral observer in order to make recommendations to the Faculty Senate or the Faculty Board of Review regarding due process for all parties in any proceedings. This person need not be the same individual in all cases, but an administrative officer will continue to serve until replaced.
3.4 Chair of the Faculty Board of Review – The individual responsible for conducting the formal hearing process. The chair receives the formal charge, conducts the prehearing conference, conducts the formal hearing, is responsible for the keeping of the records and minutes, and makes the Faculty Board of Review’s recommendation to the President.
3.5 University Legal Counsel – The lawyer assigned to the Faculty Board of Review by the Office of University Legal Counsel. University Legal Counsel will serve as a representative of the University to provide advice at any stage of the academic due process procedure to the chair of the Faculty Board of Review in appropriate cases.
3.6 Complaint – An informal allegation filed by a complainant to a responsible administrator of the University that a violation of University policy or procedure has allegedly occurred.
3.7 Disciplinary Action – Includes measures or sanctions which are imposed in accordance with PPM 9-11 or by the president following a formal hearing as a penalty for the violation of University standards. The standards and disciplinary actions authorized under this code are defined in this document in PPM 9-14.
3.8 Faculty Board of Review – The Faculty Board of Review is created and functions as described in PPM 1-13, Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws. In the event that the complainant is a student of Weber State University, two students shall be added to the Faculty Board of Review. Student representatives will be designated by the Vice President of Student Access and Success in consultation with the chair of the Faculty Senate. The student representatives need not be the same individuals in all cases.
The Faculty Board of Review will normally operate from the first day of fall semester to the last day of spring semester and be in recess during the summer. While in recess, all board action deadlines will be suspended until fall semester. The chair of the Faculty Board of Review, in consultation with the chair of the Executive Committee and University Legal Counsel, may suspend a recess as they may deem prudent for purposes of a specific matter.
3.9 Formal Charge – A concise statement of the complaint, summarizing the facts, conduct or circumstances reported to constitute failure to comply with the standards set forth in PPM 9-14, submitted in writing by the complainant to the chair of the Faculty Board of Review.
3.10 Formal Hearing – Conducted by the Faculty Board of Review as set forth in PPM 9-12, Formal Hearing. The function of this hearing is to hear and evaluate evidence and to make a recommendation for appropriate action to the President.
3.11 Independent Decision-maker - An independent decision-maker means a person or body makes decisions based on an objective review, rather than on the basis of personal bias. It is presumed that decision-makers acting within the scope of their responsibilities are impartial, which presumption may be overcome by a substantial showing of actual improper personal bias. Merely having been involved in prior matters with a complainant or respondent does not overcome the presumption.
3.12 Informal Conciliatory Process – The process the responsible administrator conducts to resolve a complaint in accordance with PPM 9-11.
3.13 Prehearing Conference – A meeting held after a formal charge has been filed with the chair of the Faculty Board of Review. At this meeting, initiated and conducted by the chair, the issues to be examined at the formal hearing are delineated.
3.14 Preliminary Investigation – A fact-finding activity conducted following the receipt of a complaint to assist the responsible administrator in making determinations about what further actions may be appropriate as per PPM 9-11.
3.15 Procedural Due Process – Refers to the receiving of adequate notice, right to an impartial forum, meeting of deadlines, completion of committee assignments and deliberative actions in accordance with established policies and other procedural matters, many of which are outlined in PPM 9-9, Due Process, General Statement. In general, procedural due process will be deemed to have been afforded when the preponderance of the evidence shows reasonable care in following established procedures. Reasonable care in the performance of the various committees and administrators (allowing for exigencies and unanticipated problems) is sufficient to meet the requirements for procedural due process. Therefore, only cases of prejudicial failure to meet procedural guidelines are to be considered cause for recommendations for rehearings.
3.16 Reasonable Care – The level of performance recognized in the profession as reasonable in light of obligations one has assumed, competing demands upon energy and time, the nature and quality of the work and all other circumstances which the academic community, after being fully informed, would properly take into account in determining whether the respondent was discharging responsibilities at an acceptable performance level.
3.17 Representative – Any individual selected by the respondent to attend the informal conciliatory process or the formal hearing, including counsel, if desired.
3.18 Respondent – A faculty member or an administrator with a faculty appointment against whom a complaint has been made or a formal charge has been issued.
3.19 Responsible Administrator – The person who receives or is otherwise delegated to review a complaint about an individual’s alleged non-compliance with standards identified in PPM 9-14. The responsible administrator may be a department chair, assistant or associate dean, dean, vice president, or other appointed administrator of the University. If the responsible administrator is not the dean, associate or assistant dean, or department chair, the provost shall appoint the responsible administrator. This person is responsible for preliminary investigation of the complaint and for conducting the informal conciliatory process. The responsible administrator may or may not have administrative jurisdiction over the respondent.
Revision History
Creation Date: 3-7-87
Amended: 4-14-09, 5-22-24
