Scope

This policy applies to all academic appointees, at all times, including periods when the university is not in session, when an appointee is on leave, and throughout the entire year for 10-month appointees. It does not apply to misconduct or incompetence reviews under ACA-30 Research Misconduct, or UA-03 Sexual Misconduct; Discrimination and Harassment.

Back to top

Policy Statement

This policy constitutes the faculty advisory body to be involved in the chief academic officer’s decision to impose severe sanctions on academic appointees following investigations into personal misconduct. Personal misconduct as reviewed under this policy is described and investigated under BOT-15 Academic Appointee Responsibilities and Conduct and BOT-24 Post-Tenure Faculty Productivity and Annual Review.   

Authority for this policy derives from BOT-03 Constitution of the Indiana University Faculty art. II, §2.2(L) and BOT-15, Procedures§5(e).

Faculty Misconduct Review Committee 

1. Purpose of the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee 

The Bloomington Faculty Misconduct Review Committee (“FMRC”) serves academic appointees of the Bloomington Campus by joining the chief academic officer (“CAO”) in reviewing the justifications for and suitability of severe sanctions proposed in personal misconduct investigations prior to their implementation. Alongside the CAO, the FMRC will examine all materials and documentation to be considered in the misconduct investigation. The FMRC will then make a recommendation to the CAO concerning the proposed sanction.

2. Membership of the FMRC 

The FMRC shall be composed of five members of the IUB faculty who must meet requirements for a seat on the faculty council and who are tenured or, in the case of NTT faculty, are on long-term contracts. Members are to be nominated by the Nominations Committee of the Bloomington Faculty Council (BFC) and elected by the BFC’s elected representatives no later than June 1 of each year. Two alternate members are to be nominated and elected in the same manner. A majority shall be tenured faculty.

Members shall serve for staggered terms of two years, so that no more than three members should be newly elected each year. Members will take office immediately after the election and shall then meet within seven (7) days of the beginning of the fall semester to choose, from among FMRC members, a committee chair. If the review of a case is pending when the election occurs, the members of the FMRC who began consideration of that case shall complete their work on the case, if possible, even if some of these members have reached the end of their two-year terms.

When offering nominations for election to the FMRC, consideration should be given to representation across the campus’s divisions. 

3. Conflict of Interest

Members of the FMRC shall recuse themselves from any cases where the faculty member under review shares their department, program, or school (in cases of schools with no departments). An alternate member shall then sit on the FMRC for the duration of the case. Committee members must also recuse themselves if they have any relationship with the faculty member that could be perceived as a conflict of interest, such as (but not limited to) a shared research grant, membership on the same community organization board, a close personal friendship, or a romantic relationship. In the event of recusals, the FMRC chair will select an alternate at random from among the list of alternates. 

4. Procedures 

A. Complaint Initiation

Complaints concerning the misconduct or incompetence of academic appointees shall be made and addressed according to the procedures set forth in BOT-15.

B. Notice and Review

In cases where the investigation has resulted in a finding of responsibility on the part of the respondent, and as a result of which the investigating administrator has proposed to the CAO that they enact a severe sanction, the FMRC chair shall be notified in writing by the CAO that the requested sanction is to be reviewed. The respondent shall also be notified in writing that the CAO and the FMRC are to examine the case. 

Any challenge to a member’s participation in the FMRC must be submitted in writing to the FMRC. A member of the FMRC will not be removed without the approval of a majority of the FMRC. If a member is removed, an alternate member will be identified by the Faculty Council office.

The investigating administrator will provide the CAO and the FMRC with all evidence examined in the consideration of the complaint, including (but not limited to) documents, communications, notes and/or transcripts of witness interviews, and written statements. The investigating administrator will also share their proposed sanction and its justification. Confidential material shall be treated in agreement with the policies and principles set forth by BL-ACA-27 Access to Academic Appointee Records.

After receipt of the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation and the information regarding the proposed sanction, the CAO and FMRC will promptly schedule a meeting or meetings to consider the case. The review of the case should be completed within twenty (20) business days of receipt of the materials, and the FMRC will communicate its recommendation to the CAO within five (5) calendar days of reaching a conclusion.   

C. Findings and Sanctions

The FMRC may make one of the following findings.  

• Agreement with the proposed severe sanction(s) 
• Proposal of an alternative sanction
• Recommendation of no sanction

In recommending sanctions, the FMRC shall take into account any extenuating circumstances. The FMRC shall make every effort to ensure that the sanctions it recommends are appropriate and proportional to the misconduct or incompetence found. 

D. Reporting of Findings and Sanctions

The FMRC shall document its recommendations in a written report that includes all relevant documentation and states the findings reached and the reasons for those findings. The report and other retained documentation must be sufficiently detailed to serve as a basis for the CAO to review and take action on the recommendations of the FMRC, as well as to facilitate review by the Faculty Board of Review (FBR), should the faculty member grieve the recommendations of the CAO and the FMRC.

The FMRC report shall be forwarded to the CAO upon its completion. The CAO shall make a decision, taking into account the recommendation of the FMRC, within twenty (20) business days and shall notify the faculty member, the complainant, and the FMRC of that decision. If the decision of the CAO differs from the recommendation of the FMRC, the CAO will provide a report to the faculty member, the complainant, the FMRC, and (upon appeal) the FBR, explaining the difference in sufficient detail to allow for review by the FBR. The decision of the CAO is final unless the faculty member appeals that decision. 

5. Appeals 

The faculty member may appeal the decision of the CAO with the FBR, in accordance with  BL-ACA-D22 Grievance and Review Procedures of the Bloomington Faculty.

6. Records 

The OVPFAA shall maintain a file that includes the report of the FMRC, the report of the CAO, all documents produced by the FBR, and the reviews and decisions made by the President. Access to the materials in the OVPFAA file shall be available to the FBR and to others only for good cause and with authorization by the faculty member or OVPFAA.  

7. Extensions of Time Requirements 

Either party may request an extension of time under these procedures by written request to the FMRC chair, to be granted at their discretion.

8. Report to the Bloomington Faculty Council 

The FMRC shall report annually in writing to the BFC the number and types of cases presented to it and the number and types of case dispositions. 

Back to top

Definitions

Sanctions against a faculty member for personal misconduct are defined in BOT-15.

Common sanctions are “intended as proportional, corrective disciplinary responses to discrete policy violations. Their primary aim should be to clarify the real or potential costs to the university community of non-compliance with the policy that was violated and to disincentivize future violations of it.” (BOT-15, Procedures § 5[b])

Severe sanctions “significantly alter the terms or conditions of a respondent’s employment or infringe upon their ability to conduct forms of work previously assigned and entrusted to them by virtue of their position classification.” (BOT-15, Procedures § 5[d])

Examples of severe sanctions could include 

• Temporary suspensions (with or without pay) 
• Salary penalties 
• Changes to effort allocations 
• Alterations to classroom activities 
• Prohibition from campus spaces
• Rescissions of named or Distinguished faculty titles
• Dismissal

Back to top

History

Alternate working title: BL-ACA D 27 Policy on Faculty Misconduct Sanction Review

Approved: BFC 04/06/99; 12/01/09, 11/15/16 

Previous versions of the policy: 

12/01/09–11/15/16

11/15/2016 - 03/01/2022: Name changed from Faculty Misconduct Policy to Policy on Faculty Disciplinary Procedures  

03/01/2022-04/13/2026

Back to top