Jun 21, 2021  
2020-21 University Handbook 
    
2020-21 University Handbook

Chapter 4D - Personnel Rules


Chapter 4D - Personnel Rules

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

(To see who has authority to approve changes to this section, please see the Approval of Changes  page).

CHAPTER 4D PERSONNEL RULES

SECTION 15: SELECTED DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO PERSONNEL MATTERS

This section contains statutes, policy documents, and interpretations which amplify statutes and policies.  Some are local; others are statewide or national in origin.

OPEN MEETINGS LAW, SECTIONS 19.81-19.98, WIS. STATS.

Meetings of governmental bodies at UW-Stevens Point are subject to open meetings law, sections 19.81-19.98, Wis. Stats.

(http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/19/V/81)

 

OPEN MEETINGS LAW:  COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATIONS

These comments and interpretations are from the Attorney-General, System Legal Counsel, or local guidelines.  Those marked * are from Wisconsin Open Meetings Law:  A Compliance Guide, 1993, Department of Justice, Attorney-General James E. Doyle.

The comments are arranged alphabetically; some appear under multiple headings.

Absentee Ballots. 

Absentee ballots may not be used for decisions of a governmental body.

Agendas. 

No item which has not been announced as part of the meeting agenda may be introduced for action.  Every member of the body and the public must be advised of any changes (additions or deletions) at least 2 hours before the meeting.

Miscellaneous Business. 

The attorney general has concluded that under very limited circumstances, general subject matter designations such as “miscellaneous business” constitute adequate notice that items not specifically listed may come before the body.  Such listings may never be used 

  • to circumvent the statute;
  • when giving more notice and greater specificity is possible;
  • where a member of the body is aware, prior to the meeting, of the subject matter; or
  • where the matter is of great public concern.

In any of these enumerated circumstances or in any reasonably similar circumstances, the matter should be held over for a subsequent meeting and appropriate notice given.

Reconsideration of a Vote. 

Where notice of a pending reconsideration and the specific subject to be reconsidered are not specifically given, a reconsideration may be brought before a body under a general subject designation.  However, any discussion or action on a motion to reconsider should be held over for a subsequent meeting and appropriate notice given.

Closed Sessions. 

Closed sessions are to be used sparingly and only when necessary to protect the public interest, and only when appropriate under one or more of the exemptions of the statute.*

Convening Closed Meetings. 

Section 19.83 requires that every meeting shall be preceded by public notice and shall initially be convened in open session.  It provides that all discussion and action, formal or informal, be initiated, deliberated and acted upon in open session except where the meeting has been closed, with announcement made for purposes permitted by Sec. 19.85.   If proper notice is given, an open session can be held after a closed session.

Request for a Closed Meeting. 

While a closed meeting is permissible under the Open Meeting Law for purposes of a personnel decision (or reconsideration), a faculty or academic staff member has no absolute right to have the meeting closed.  [See also “Request for a Closed Session,” below]

Vote. 

Although there are two differing lower court rulings (one based on previous law on open meetings), there is no definitive court ruling on whether it is appropriate to vote in closed session.*

The advice of the attorney-general is, “a governmental body should vote in open session, unless doing so would compromise the need for the closed session.”*

(A vote may be taken in closed session if the vote is an integral part of the purpose for which the closed session was properly called.)

Results of Closed Sessions. 

In most cases it is proper for the chief presiding officer to announce the results of the closed session immediately thereafter. This would not result in reconvening in open session within twelve hours after completion of closed session.

Who May Attend Closed Sessions. 

Attendance at closed sessions usually should be limited to the members of the governmental body, confidential staff persons, and other nonmembers as may be directly participating in the session or portion of the session.

Those persons necessary for a proper discussion of the subject may attend a closed session at the request of the governmental body. The body has the discretion to excuse persons attending a closed session at any time it believes those persons are no longer necessary for its work.

Convening Closed Meetings. 

Section 19.83 requires that every meeting shall be preceded by public notice and shall initially be convened in open session.  It provides that all discussion and action, formal or informal, be initiated, deliberated and acted upon in open session except where the meeting has been closed, with announcement made for purposes permitted by Sec. 19.85.   If proper notice is given, an open session can be held after a closed session.

Departmental/Unit Decisions. 

A departmental or unit vote/decision must be conducted at a duly convened meeting of that department or unit.

Ballots may not be circulated to the members of the department or unit complete, sign, and return them to the department office.  Since this would not be within the confines of a duly convened meeting of the department or unit, it cannot constitute an official act of the department or unit.

Exclusion of Members. 

No department or unit or committee or other body covered by the Open Meeting Law may exclude any member of that body from any meeting unless the group has specific rules to the contrary.  This section [of the statute] also provides that no member of a body may ever be excluded from meetings of subunits of the body unless the body has specific rules to the contrary.

Exemptions to Open Meetings. 

Section 19.85 was designed to limit and specify the topics which can be discussed in closed sessions.  By having the presiding officer announce the specific exemption which applies, describe the nature of the business to be considered, and then record each member’s vote on convening in closed session, it is easier to determine whether there is a violation of the law and who is responsible.

Exemptions Must Be Cited. 

Naming the general subject matter of a closed session is not sufficient to comply with Sec. 19.85(1); it is necessary to also name the specific statutory exemption which applies.  (The phrase “personnel matters” is insufficient notice.)

Governmental Bodies. 

“The definition of ‘governmental body’ includes a ‘state or local agency, board, commission, committee, council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or order.’”*

Subunits. 

A “‘formally constituted subunit’” of any governmental body is also a governmental body under the definitions of the law.  A subunit is a separate, smaller body of a parent body.  A smaller entity which is made up both of members of a parent body and persons not members of the parent body is not a subunit under the law but may nonetheless also be a governmental body.*

UW System Applicability.
Institutional Subunits. 

Colleges, schools, departments (or functional equivalents), and all committees or subcommittees of these units, and all committees or subcommittees created by or pursuant to rules and regulations of the Board of Regents are governmental bodies within the meaning of the law.

Common Council. 

All groups which have and exercise an authority not vested in the individual members are covered by the terms of the law. This includes the Common Council and all committees and subcommittees thereof.

Exemptions. 

Staff meetings, social events, and meetings of appointed advisory bodies, unless provided for in rule, charter or constitution, are not subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.

Mail Ballots. 

Advisory. 

Mail ballots are permissible if confined to advisory referenda.

Departmental/Unit Decisions. 

A departmental or unit vote/decision must be conducted at a duly convened meeting of that department or unit.  Mail ballots may not be used for votes on actions of the department or unit.

Minutes. 

The law does not demand detailed minutes but requires only that a record be kept of motions and roll call votes, both in open and closed session.*

Every official meeting of a department/unit or a department or unit committee must be recorded in a formal set of minutes.  These minutes must include a record of each motion, the vote on that motion, and, in the event or a roll call vote (or a written ballot), a record of individual votes.

  • There should be agreement in advance, preferably recorded in the minutes of the first meeting, or in the departmental or unit personnel rules or constitution, on the distribution of minutes and disposition of the written ballots.
  • Department and unit rules should also make clear the effect of an abstention, or a response of “present.”  [According to Robert’s Rules of Order, an abstention is not a vote; answering “present” is considered an abstention.]

Motions and Votes Recorded. 

The motions and roll call votes of each meeting shall be recorded, preserved, and open to public inspection.  Further, any member of the body may require that a vote be taken in such a manner that the vote of each member may be ascertained and recorded.

Open Meeting Defined. 

A meeting is open within the meaning of the law if members of the public are free to come and go.  There is no legal requirement that such meetings be held in the largest hall on campus.  Open meetings should be scheduled where convenient.

Open Meetings:  Who May Speak. 

An open meeting does not give any member of the audience the right to speak.  Only members of the body and persons specifically recognized for that purpose by the presiding officer may speak.  In personnel matters, the affected faculty member may request an open meeting but does not thereby gain the right to speak. That option is the prerogative of the body which is meeting.

Personnel Decisions. 

Legal requirements and System or UWSP policies concerning open or closed meetings, and the options available to faculty and academic staff for personnel decisions, may be found in Chapters UWSP 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , and 13  of the local personnel policies and procedures, and the procedures adopted under each of those chapters.

Requests for Open Meeting. 

When an open session is requested by one or more, but less than all, of the persons under consideration, that portion of the meeting devoted to presentation of all materials for or against each of the candidates requesting the open session must be open. 

Discussion of other individuals under consideration should be closed and held after the open portion of the deliberations.  A person requesting an open session is not entitled to hear comparable discussion about peers not requesting open sessions.

All Sessions Must Be Open. 

If a faculty or academic staff member requests that the evidentiary session of a meeting on renewal or tenure or the evidentiary session of a hearing be open, then the deliberative session must also be open.

Notice of Renewal Consideration. 

A department or unit or university committee considering renewal of a contract is exempt from the notice provisions of Sec. 19.84 except that it must give notice to interested persons and members of the news media filing written requests.  [Refer also to the section on “Public Notice,” below.]

Policy Presumption. 

The open meetings law establishes a presumption that all meetings of governmental bodies will be held in open session.  There are exemptions but the exemptions are to be invoked sparingly and only when necessary to protect the public interest.  The law provides that its provisions are to be liberally construed so as to achieve the highest degree of openness in government.*

Public Notice. 

Under Section 19.84 (5), departments/units and their subunits are exempt from the public notice requirements, except that they “shall provide meeting notice which is reasonably likely to apprise interested persons, and news media who have filed written requests for such notice.”  In order to assure compliance with this requirement, departments/units and the subunits are advised to adhere to all requirements of the statute as if they were not exempt.

Meeting Announcements. 

The official vehicle for public announcement of all meetings at UWSP is the University Newsletter.

Responsibility for Notice. 

Those responsible for convening any meeting covered by the Open Meeting Law are to provide electronic mail or other written notice (including group, date, time, place, brief agenda, and whether a closed session is involved) to News Service, Main Building, before 9:00 a.m., Wednesday.

A standing notice may be filed for groups which hold regular meetings.

Deadline Missed. 

If the decision to hold a meeting is made after the deadline for the University Newsletter has passed, the requirements for public notice may be met by posting an announcement of the meeting, at least 24 hours in advance (in emergencies, at least 2 hours in advance), in a place where those of the public most interested might reasonably be expected to see it.

In addition, written notice is to be filed with News Service, which serves as the office of record for all meetings covered by the Open Meeting Law and will respond to inquiries from the news media and others.

Request for a Closed Session. 

While a closed meeting is permissible under the Open Meeting Law for purposes of a personnel decision (or reconsideration), a faculty or academic staff member has no absolute right to have the meeting closed.

A Personnel Committee is a “governmental body” as defined in 19.82 (1), Stats., and thus subject to the open meeting requirement of 19.83.  However, Sec. 19.85 (1)(b) permits a governmental body to hold a closed session for the purpose of considering and acting on the grant or denial of tenure for a university faculty member, upon a motion duly made and carried by the governmental body.

The decision to invoke the exemption from the open meetings requirement is a matter for the governmental body itself rather than the faculty member.

Section 19.85 (1)(b) does give the faculty member the right to demand that meetings which are evidentiary hearings be held in open session under some circumstances, but there is no specific statutory right to a closed session.  That right to open sessions has been extended through Common Council action to all faculty and academic staff.

The absence of a right in the faculty or academic staff member to demand a closed meeting does not preclude the Personnel Committee from meeting in closed session.  Section 19.85 (1)(b) appears to contemplate that tenure deliberations will generally occur in closed meetings.  There appears no reason why the Personnel Committee could not or should not vote to honor the faculty or academic staff member’s request by convening in closed session.

Requirements. 

There are 2 basic requirements of the Open Meetings Law:

  • give advance public notice; and
  • conduct all business in open session, unless an exemption applies.*

Secret Ballots Not Permitted. 

Except for the election of officers, secret ballots may not be taken at any open or closed meeting of a body covered by the terms of the Open Meeting Law.

Taping. 

The law gives anyone the right to tape record or videotape open sessions, so long as the recording does not disrupt the meeting.*

NOTE:  the provisions of the Open Records Law most likely preclude asking someone who wishes to record a meeting either their name or why they wish to record the meeting.

Violations. 

Any action taken in violation of the Open Meeting Law may be voidable, and any member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting held in violation of the law, or who, in an official capacity, otherwise violates the law by some act or omission, may be fined not less than $25 nor more than $300 for each such violation.

No person may be found in violation if that person makes or votes in favor of a motion to prevent the violation from occurring.

Voting.

Absentee Ballots. 

Absentee ballots may not be used for decisions of a governmental body.

Departmental/Unit Decisions. 

A departmental or unit vote/decision must be conducted at a duly convened meeting of that department.

Mail Ballots. 

Mail ballots are permissible only if confined to advisory referenda.

Motions and Votes Recorded. 

The motions and roll call votes of each meeting shall be recorded, preserved, and open to public inspection.  Further, any member of the body may require that a vote be taken in such a manner that the vote of each member may be ascertained and recorded.

Reconsideration of a Vote. 

Where notice of a pending reconsideration and the specific subject to be reconsidered are not specifically given, a reconsideration may be brought before a body under a general subject designation.  However, any discussion or action on a motion to reconsider should be held over for a subsequent meeting and appropriate notice given.

Results of Closed Sessions. 

In most cases it is proper for the chief presiding officer to announce the results of the closed session immediately thereafter. This would not result in reconvening in open session within twelve hours after completion of closed session.

Secret Ballots Not Permitted. 

Except for the election of officers, secret ballots may not be taken at any open or closed meeting of a body covered by the terms of the Open Meeting Law.

Vote in Closed Session. 

Although there are two differing lower court rulings (one based on previous law on open meetings), there is no definitive court ruling on whether it is appropriate to vote in closed session.  “A governmental body should vote in open session, unless doing so would compromise the need for the closed session.”*

(A vote may be taken in closed session if the vote is an integral part of the purpose for which the closed session was properly called.)

Written Ballots. 

It is not advisable to use written ballots for any vote.  However, if written ballots are used, to meet the requirements of the Open Meetings Law, which prohibits any secret ballot except in the election of officers, the ballots must be

  • signed by the individual voters at the time of the vote;
  • preserved by the presiding officer of the body or treated as a roll call vote and recorded in the minutes of the meeting;
  • open to public inspection upon request (whether the vote was taken at an open or closed session); and
  • if any member requests that the vote be taken in such a manner that the vote of each member may be ascertained and recorded, written ballots must be treated as a roll call vote.

This does not preclude the use of a written evaluation or a written advisory recommendation where such evaluations or recommendations are signed and used only as information.

  • Forms circulated to department members for these purposes should not specifically request a yes or no recommendation on personnel matters such as promotion, retention, or tenure, although the individual responding may choose to make such a recommendation.
  • Evaluations of individuals for personnel actions must be available to the individual, and to all members of the committee making the decision.

When Applicable. 

The open meetings law applies to all meetings of all governmental bodies.*

What Constitutes Meetings. 

  1. One-half the Members.  Normally, when half the members of a body are gathered other than for a social event or convention, there is a rebuttable presumption that a meeting is taking place, even if the members are gathered only to hear information on a matter within the authority of the body.*
  2. Negative Quorum.  When a number of the body’s members sufficient to control the outcome are involved in a gathering, there is a rebuttable presumption of a meeting.  For example, if a body has a two-thirds majority rule and one-third of the members are gathered (a so-called negative quorum), there is a rebuttable presumption of a meeting.*
  3. Conference Calls.  Telephone conference calls involving a sufficient numbers of members of a body to control the outcome also meet the definition of a meeting.*

Written Ballots.

It is not advisable to use written ballots for any vote.  However, if written ballots are used, in order to meet the requirements of the Open Meetings Law prohibiting any secret ballot except in the election of officers, the ballots must be

  • signed by the individual voters at the time of the vote;
  • preserved by the presiding officer of the body or treated as a roll call vote and recorded in the minutes of the meeting;
  • open to public inspection upon request (whether the vote was taken at an open or closed session); and
  • if any member requests that the vote be taken in such a manner that the vote of each member may be ascertained and recorded, written ballots must be treated as a roll call vote.

This does not preclude the use of a written evaluation or a written advisory recommendation where such evaluations or recommendations are signed and used only as information.

  • Forms circulated to department members for these purposes should not specifically request a yes or no recommendation on personnel matters such as promotion, retention, or tenure, although the individual responding may choose to make such a recommendation.
  • Evaluations of individuals for personnel actions must be available to the individual, and to all members of the committee making the decision.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

UW-Stevens Point adopts and supports measures designed to prevent and eliminate discrimination against employees and prospective and current employees based on protected categories under state and federal law as outlined within the UWS policies.

Complete policy information is available at the Human Resources policy page.

UW-Stevens Point Affirmative Action Program webpage.

CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS POLICY

In RPD 14-8, Consensual Relationships, the Board addresses relationships between an employee and a student and relationships between an employee and another employee, and it identifies when a relationship may result in a disciplinary action against an employee.

For concerns about student conduct related to this policy contact the UW-Stevens Point Office of the Dean of Students.

Dean of Students Office
Phone: 715-346-2611
dos@uwsp.edu
Address:
2100 Main Street
Old Main Room 212
 

For concerns about faculty or staff conduct related to this policy contact UW-Stevens Point Human Resources.

Human Resources
Phone: 715-346-2606
hr@uwsp.edu
Address:
2100 Main Street
Old Main Room 133


Harassment and Discrimination

UW-Stevens Point promotes and supports an environment free from incidents of sexual violence and sexual harassment and discrimination against students, employees, and prospective and current employees based on protected categories under state and federal law as outlined within the UWS policies.

Complete policy information is available at the Human Resources policy page

UW-Stevens Point Title IX website.

 


INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

PURPOSE

The Institutional Review Board is established as an independent peer group to advise the Chancellor in the planning, evaluation, implementation and coordination of UWSP’s programs concerning research on human subjects as well as review all human subjects research conducted at UWSP. The IRB has the authority to review, approve, disapprove, or require changes for approval in research activities involving human subjects.

RESPONSIBILITIES

The Board shall review all research involving human subjects, whether funded or not, to insure compliance with Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Guidelines on Research Involving Human Beings (45 CFR 46), and UW System principles concerning research on human beings as subjects.

MEMBERSHIP

The Board shall consist of at least seven persons appointed by the Vice Chancellor.  At least three of the members shall have experience conducting human subjects research.   At least one member of the board will be a community representative with no formal connection to the university.

MEETINGS
  1. The Board will be scheduled to meet on a regular basis at least monthly during the academic year to transact business.  Unless otherwise provided, meetings will be conducted according to the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.  Regularly scheduled meetings may be canceled if there is no business.
  2. An agenda and accompanying review materials will be distributed to Board members within the week preceding the meeting.
  3. Principal investigators, or their designated representatives, may be present during the meeting to provide additional information or to answer questions at the time the protocol is reviewed.  Visitors may speak at Board meetings after recognition by the chairperson or upon request of a Board member.
QUORUM

A quorum of the Board will consist of a majority of the membership.

OFFICERS AND MINUTES
  1. The chairperson of the board is appointed by the Vice Chancellor.   The chairperson will be responsible for communicating official actions of the Board to appropriate individuals and will preside over Board meetings.  In the absence of the chairperson, a designated member of the board will perform these functions.
  2. An official record of each meeting will be maintained.  The official minutes will reflect the attendance, motions of the Board, and votes, noting negative votes and abstentions.  The official minutes will include any statement members of the Board may wish to be officially recorded.  A copy of the minutes shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor and to University Archives.  Additional copies will be forwarded to interested parties upon request.  The official minutes will be subject to correction and/or approval and the original of all records will be retired to the University Archives at the conclusion of each academic year.
VOTING
  1. Except for cases covered in (2) below, all motions must receive a number of affirmative votes equal to the legal quorum for adoption.  The chairperson is eligible to vote on all matters, except as provided in (4) below.
  2. Voting will take place in Board meetings by those members present.  Because of the importance of discussion in the Board’s review and approval processes, absentee votes may not be taken.  Any Board member who anticipates being absent from a meeting and who wishes to participate in voting on a given protocol may request in writing to the chairperson in advance of the meeting that consideration of the protocol be deferred in accordance with (3) below.  Any member who anticipates being absent from a meeting may submit written information to be presented at the meeting on protocol(s) for the Board to consider in its review of the protocol(s).
  3. Any member of the Board, on any given motion, may request that the protocol being voted on be deferred for consideration at a special meeting or at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.  Members will be sent a special notice informing them of the deferral action, and the date, place, and time of the meeting for reconsideration.  Deferral for reconsideration can be made only once for each protocol.
  4. No member of the Board shall be involved in either the initial or continuing review or approval of an activity in which the member has a conflicting interest except to provide information requested by the Board.  A conflict of interest exists if a person (i) is written into the proposal or project as a participant or (ii) signs the proposal transmittal form in a capacity other than a representative of the Chancellor or Board of Regents.  Any member may voluntarily abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest even if the member does not fall within these definitional categories of “conflict of interest.”
  5. All meetings shall comply with the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Sections 19.81-19.98, Wisconsin Statutes.

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 

REPORTING GUIDELINES

Acts of violence are prohibited by law. The University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point is committed to providing faculty, staff and students with an environment that is safe, secure and free from violence, and other forms of aggressive behavior; one which is based upon civility, respect and the free expression of ideas.

To promote an atmosphere that encourages learning and productive employment, quick responsive action will be taken if violence or the threat of violence arises. This includes any direct, conditional or implied threat, intentional act, or other conduct that reasonably arouses fear, hostility, intimidation or the apprehension of harm.

Violence and threats of violence are always prohibited on campus, especially whenever:

  • the act, behavior, or communication is abusive and could cause another person physical, emotional, or psychological harm;
  • the act, behavior, or communication damages or threatens to damage property of the university or of an individual.

All members of the university community should report any act of violence, potential violence, threatening, aggressive or disruptive behavior to a supervisor, department chair, the Office of the Dean of Students (if students are involved), the Human Resources Office or Police and Security Services.  These resource people can help ensure that your concerns are properly reported and investigated. The employee who receives such a report is obligated to channel the complaint through the appropriate university procedures.

Examples of campus violence include, but are not limited to:

  • threats of harm to a person or their property;
  • intentional damage to university or private property;
  • brandishing a weapon or an object that appears to be a weapon;
  • threatening or directing abusive language toward another person;
  • stalking as defined by Wisconsin statute;
  • physical attacks on another person such as slapping, punching, pushing or intimidating gestures;
  • domestic conflicts that extend into the workplace.

Any person who exhibits violent, aggressive or threatening behavior will be held accountable for their actions under university policy and rules, as well as local, state and federal laws.  Violators are subject to disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal, and may be subject to criminal prosecution.

This policy does not replace any current disciplinary or formal grievance process established in agreements with collective bargaining units and governance groups.  Nor does the use of this process cause an employee to forfeit the right to file a grievance.  If an employee is represented by a bargaining unit, he/she may request the assistance of a union representative at any step in this process.

REPORTING PROCEDURES

Employee Responsibilities:

  • Remove yourself from the threat as soon as possible.
  • Contact Police and Security Services at ext. 3456 if there is a threat of danger of physical violence.
  • Call 911 if there is a medical emergency.
  • Immediately notify your supervisor, department chair, dean, or residence hall director if you are a victim of, or a witness to, an act of violence or other violation(s) of this policy.
  • Document the incident as soon as possible.

Department Responsibilities:

  • Contact Police and Security Services at ext. 3456 if there is a threat of danger or physical violence.
  • Call 911 if there is a medical emergency.
  • Obtain written statements from witnesses.
  • Investigate or arrange to investigate the complaint.
  • Interview witnesses, gather facts, and assess the situation.
  • Determine if the complaint can be resolved within the unit without disciplinary action or if other action should be taken.
  • If resolved within the unit, take whatever action is deemed appropriate.
  • If disciplinary or other action is considered, confer with the Human Resources Office, the appropriate division head, or the Office of the Dean of Students (if students are involved) to determine the appropriate course of action.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Researchers are expected to retain appropriate documentation for their research and adhere to accepted ethical standards appropriate to their academic discipline.

DEFINITION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Misconduct is intentional falsification of data, plagiarism, or other practices that deviate from common research practice within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.  Honest errors and differences in interpretation of data are not considered misconduct.  Misconduct is prohibited at UWSP, and may be cause for discipline or dismissal.

REPORT OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Research collaborators, colleagues, and anyone who has reason to believe that research misconduct has occurred has the responsibility of reporting the misconduct.  Retaliation because of good faith reporting of misconduct is prohibited.  However, individuals found to have brought allegations of a frivolous or malicious nature shall be subject to the same range of disciplinary action as individuals found guilty of violating this policy.

PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING RESEARCH MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
  1. Allegations shall be reported in writing to the dean of the appropriate college.  The accused individual shall be informed in writing by the dean within 10 days (a) what allegations have been made, (b) the identity of the accuser, and (c) that an initial inquiry into the allegations may result in a subsequent investigation.
  2. The dean of the college shall undertake a prompt and discreet inquiry.  All matters pertaining to the inquiry shall be kept in strict confidence.  The inquiry consists of information gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether a more extensive investigation is warranted.  The inquiry shall be completed within 60 days from the time the written allegations were received by the dean.
  3. If the inquiry concludes that the allegation of misconduct is unsubstantiated, and an investigation is not warranted, then the reasons and supporting documentation for this conclusion shall be reported to the Chancellor.  If the Chancellor concurs with the conclusion that an investigation is not warranted, then no further action shall be taken in the matter.  The conclusion of the dean and Chancellor, as well as all supporting documentation from the inquiry, shall be recorded and the record maintained confidentially for a period of three years following termination of the inquiry.
  4. If the inquiry finds reasonable cause to believe the allegations are neither frivolous nor misguided, the individual against whom the allegation was made shall be provided a copy of the report of the dean’s inquiry.  The matter shall then be referred to an ad hoc committee appointed by the dean for formal investigation.  Committee members shall be individuals who are knowledgeable in the researcher’s area of study, but who are not involved with the research in question nor in competition with the accused.  It may be advisable in certain situations to invite researchers from other institutions to participate in the investigation.  The investigation shall be initiated within 30 days of the completion of the inquiry.  If the research in question has been supported by extramural funds, the institution may be required to notify the funding agency that a formal investigation is underway.
  1. The ad hoc committee shall determine whether misconduct has occurred and assess its extent and consequences.
  2. If the ad hoc committee finds the charges to be true, then the dean shall follow normal governance procedures (UWSP Chapters 4 , 6 , 11 , or 13 ) to invoke an appropriate penalty, ranging from reprimand to dismissal.
  3. A copy of the committee’s report shall be provided to the individual under investigation.  The dean shall afford the individual under investigation an opportunity to discuss the matter with the committee and himself/herself prior to any action taken under Section 4(B) above.  The individual under investigation may reply in writing to the Committee.  Any reply will be appended to the committee report.
  4. Appropriate agencies and journals shall be notified by the Office of Academic Affairs in the event that misconduct is verified by the ad hoc committee.
  5. If misconduct is not verified by the ad hoc committee, extensive efforts shall be made to restore the reputation of the accused individual.

FACULTY LEAVES WITHOUT PAY

DEFINITION

A leave without pay (LWOP), for the purposes of this policy, is defined to include any reduction in appointment which is requested by the individual and for which no salary is received from University of Wisconsin sources.  The leave is considered to be of a temporary nature for the purposes indicated below.  This definition does not include leaves for faculty development, illness, sabbatical purposes, or political activity.

POLICIES GOVERNING ALL LWOP
Office Space

Faculty members on leave are entitled to office space in their departments as long as such space is available.  If a temporary replacement is hired for a faculty member on leave and there is no extra office space available in the department, then the member on leave may be required to relinquish his/her office.

Use of Facilities

Faculty members on leave may use University facilities and equipment related to their academic field and their usual University responsibilities.  If shortages of facilities or equipment arise, faculty members actively teaching in the given semester have priority over those on leave of absence.

Duration

Normally, the maximum length of time for which a leave will be granted is one year.  The leave may be renewed annually, but only with the approval of the department.

Procedures and Dates for Request and Renewal of Leaves

Normally requests for, and renewal of, leaves that involve a faculty member’s return to formal schooling to obtain an advanced degree should be submitted by March 1 for the following academic year.   Requests for, and renewal of, all other leaves should be submitted by May 1 for the following academic year, and October 1 for the second semester.  Consideration of all leaves and renewals shall begin at the department level.

TYPES OF LEAVES AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES
Full Leaves

Full leaves entail a total severance of all duties for a period of not less than one semester.

Individuals on full leaves for one semester or longer may not be members of the Common Council nor may they serve on Common Council committees.

Individuals on full leaves may participate in departmental governance as specified by the department’s by-laws, so long as they comply with appropriate provisions of the statutes of the State of Wisconsin.

Education Leaves

These leaves may be requested by individuals not holding the terminal degree for time to pursue a terminal degree at a recognized institution of higher education within a specified program.

Salary:  The individual will not be advanced a year on the salary schedule, but may opt to be considered for merit.

Seniority:  Such leaves shall not count toward seniority under UWSP 5.08.

Professional Leaves

These leaves may only be granted with the concurrence of the department.  They are defined as leaves for any purpose related to an individual’s duties at the University.  They may include, but are not limited to: teaching at another institution; research at another institution; work outside an educational institution related to duties at UWSP; work not clearly related to duties at UWSP but deemed appropriate by the department.

Salary:  The individual will be advanced one year on the salary schedule, and may opt to be considered for merit.

Seniority:  Such leaves shall count toward seniority under UWSP 5.08.

Non-Professional Leaves

Persons may be granted LWOP upon recommendation of their department for purposes not related to their employment at UWSP or to their professional duties.  Persons on non-professional LWOP do not advance in either seniority or on the salary schedule during the period on leave but may opt to be considered for merit.

Partial Leaves

A person on partial leave remains on campus during part of the leave period and participates in the normal activities associated with full-time employment, though to a lesser extent.  Consequently, no special policies need apply.

Salary:  The individual on partial leave shall advance one full year on the salary schedule while on partial leave.

Seniority:  Covered by UWSP 5.08 (2).

Governance:  The individual on partial leave shall continue to have the same rights and responsibilities to both his/her department and to the University in governance matters.

 

PROCESS FOR DESIGNATING GPR-FUNDED ACADEMIC STAFF POSITION FIXED-TERM

The following process must be followed to seek approval from Academic Staff Council to designate a GPR-funded position as fixed-term:

  • Contact Academic Staff Council chair at least 2 weeks prior to the next scheduled meeting. If emergency cases arise during the summer, the employing department must contact the ASC Chair to request a meeting.  The meeting will take place as quickly as a quorum can be achieved (within a three week timeframe).
  • Provide written documentation outlining the rationale for converting the position from probationary to fixed-term.  This documentation must be given to the ASC chair no later than one week prior to the meeting to discuss the request.
  • Representation from the unit must attend the meeting in which the request will be discussed.  If there is currently an Academic Staff person in the position in question and their status has the potential of being changed, they will be invited to attend the meeting and will also receive all supporting documentation prior to the meeting.

If a position is approved as a fixed term position, a two-year review may be assigned to the position to re-assess the necessity for it to be fixed term.  The Academic Affairs Office, in particular the Associate Vice Chancellor for Personnel, Budget, and Grants will be responsible for notification to the department that the position must be reviewed.

STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION - EVALUATIVE FORM

The results of this survey will be used in personnel evaluations, and to provide summary data for Student Government Association records, and will be made available to your instructor only after grades have been recorded for the course. Mark the most appropriate response to each statement in the corresponding circles to the right.

Unless you are otherwise instructed, please answer all items on a scale of 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree.

ITEMS ABOUT THE STUDENT:
  1. I completed all assigned tasks before coming to class.
  2. I came to this course with a strong interest in learning this material.
  3. I sought out the instructor when I needed help with course content.
  4. I made a serious effort to attend class regularly.
  5. I expect to receive the following grade in this course

1-A or Pass             2-B                3-C                4-D                5-F

  1. Why did you enroll in this class?  (mark all that apply)

1-GDR/GEP  2-Required for major/minor  3-elective for major/minor  4-general elective  5-recommended by advisor  6-sounded interesting

ITEMS ABOUT THE COURSE:
  1. The course objectives and requirements were clear.
  2. The course materials and activities were relevant to the course objectives.
  3. Based on the course objectives and requirements, the course workload was

Much too low             low                  appropriate                high                much too high

1                     2                          3                           4                           5      

  1. I learned a lot in this course.
  2. Overall, this was a good course.
ITEMS ABOUT THE INSTRUCTOR:
  1. The instructor organized the course material well.
  2. The instructor demonstrated enthusiasm for the subject matter.
  3. The Instructor treated students with courtesy and respect.
  4. The instructor encouraged participation in class.
  5. The instructor welcomed interaction outside of class for academic support.
  6. The instructor provided useful feedback on my performance.
  7. Overall, the instructor taught this course effectively.

STUDENT EVALUATION OF ONLINE INSTRUCTION - EVALUATIVE FORM

The results of this survey will be used in personnel evaluations, and to provide summary data for Student Government Association records, and will be made available to your instructor only after grades have been recorded for the course. Mark the most appropriate response to each statement in the corresponding circles to the right.

Unless you are otherwise instructed, please answer all items on a scale of 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree.

ITEMS ABOUT THE STUDENT:
  1. I completed all assigned tasks on or before due dates.
  2. I enrolled in this course with a strong interest in learning this material.
  3. I contacted the instructor when I needed help with course content.
  4. I kept up with all assigned readings and activities.
  5. I expect to receive the following grade in this course

1-A or Pass             2-B                3-C                4-D                5-F

  1. Why did you enroll in this class?  (mark all that apply)

1-General Degree Requirement  2-Required for major/minor  3-elective for major/minor  4-general elective  5-recommended by advisor  6-sounded interesting

ITEMS ABOUT THE COURSE:
  1. The course objectives and requirements were clear.
  2. The course materials and activities were relevant to the course objectives.
  3. Based on the course objectives and requirements, the course workload was

Much too low             low                  appropriate                high                much too high

1                      2                         3                            4                          5

  1. I learned a lot in this course.
  2. Overall, this was a good course.
ITEMS ABOUT THE INSTRUCTOR:
  1. The instructor prepared a well-organized online course.
  2. The instructor demonstrated enthusiasm for the subject matter.
  3. The instructor helped to foster mutual respect.
  4. The instructor encouraged active participation in the course.
  5. The instructor responded to my questions in a timely manner.
  6. The instructor provided useful feedback on my performance.
  7. Overall, the instructor taught this course effectively.

STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION REPORTING FORM

Instructor’s Name________________________________________________________

Course Number    _______________  Credit Hours   ______          GDR:    Y      N                

Class Size            ______________   Responses   _________                                

Instructor’s prior experience teaching this course: _________ semesters

 

Question Median for this Course Dept. Median for Comparable Courses*
1.    
2.    
3.    
4.    
5.    
6.    
7.    
8.    
9.    
10.    
11.    
12.    
13.    
14.    
15.    
16.    
17.    
18.    

  *Comparable courses, using the same evaluation form, include the following:

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

 

STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION - OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL FORM

· BANK OF SAMPLE STATEMENTS ·

 A-Strongly Agree       B-Agree       C-Neutral          D-Disagree        E-Strongly Disagree

INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS
  1. Lectures were presented in a way that facilitated note-taking.
  2. The instructor provides individual attention when needed.
  3. This instructor made effective use of examples and illustrations.
  4. The instructor commands the respect of students.
  5. Student participation is encouraged during discussion sessions.
  6. The questions asked by this instructor stimulated me to think more deeply.
  7. The instructor answered questions clearly and concisely.
  8. This instructor stresses conceptual understanding.
  9. Abstract ideas and theories were presented in a clear manner.
  10. The instructor identified the relative importance of topics covered in class.
  11. This instructor can sense whether class members are following the lecture or discussion.
  12. Class time is used to the maximum benefit of students.
  13. The material in this course was presented objectively.
  14. This instructor invites critical assessment of the ideas presented in class.
  15. The instructor conveys interest and excitement in the subject matter.
  16. The instructor speaks clearly and can easily be heard throughout the class.
  17. Laboratory exercises helped to clarify the material presented in lecture.
COURSE OBJECTIVES, MATERIALS, AND ORGANIZATION
  1. The principal objectives of the course were clearly presented by the instructor.
  2. This course met the objectives outlined by the instructor.
  3. The course requirements were challenging without being excessively difficult.
  4. The instructor used visual aids effectively in this course.
  5. The textbook was helpful in meeting course objectives.
  6. Laboratory or studio facilities were adequate for the tasks required.
  7. The instructor suggests appropriate references for further study.
  8. Sufficient time was allotted by the instructor to meet course objectives.
  9. Course content matched the course objectives well.
  10. The material presented seemed well planned and organized.
ASSIGNMENTS, EXAMINATIONS, AND GRADING
  1. The assignments appeared to promote course objectives.
  2. The instructor provides assignments which increase understanding of the subject matter.
  3. I regularly completed the assignments in this course.
  4. Directions and materials provided by the instructor adequately prepared me for assignments.
  5. Course exams demanded understanding rather than rote memorization.
  6. Examination questions were clearly worded.
  7. The number of examinations ensured a fair evaluation.
  8. Tests could be completed in the allotted time.
  9. Students were given sufficient notice of tests and quizzes.
  10. Tests and assignments were graded and returned within a reasonable period of time.
  11. Evaluation in this class was directly related to the course objectives.
  12. The grading standards seemed fair and reasonable from my perspective.
CLASSROOM CLIMATE AND FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS
  1. Students were encouraged to think for themselves.
  2. This instructor treats students with courtesy and respect.
  3. The instructor was able to develop good rapport with the students.
  4. Students felt free to ask questions and express their ideas.
  5. My interest in the subject has increased as a result of this instructor.
  6. Regular attendance at class was necessary in order to learn the required material.
  7. This instructor appears to understand the academic difficulties experienced by students.
  8. The instructor made an effort to know students as individuals.
  9. This instructor is clearly enthusiastic about teaching.
  10. The instructor keeps appointments with students, including scheduled office hours.
· BANK OF SAMPLE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ·
  1. What were some of the strengths of the instructor?
  2. What were some of the weaknesses of the instructor?
  3. Is there something that you believe the instructor has done especially well in this course?
  4. Is there something that you believe the instructor might have done better?
  5. What surprised you most about the course?
  6. What were some of the strengths of the course?
  7. What were some of the weaknesses of the course?
  8. How much intellectual discipline was required in this course?
  9. Compare the level of difficulty of this course to others you have had.
  10. How much effort have you put into this course compared to other students in the class?
  11. In your opinion, how well did the course accomplish its objectives?
  12. What was the most significant thing that you did to help fulfill the course objectives?
  13. Describe the most significant thing the instructor did to help fulfill the course objectives.
  14. Was there a significant factor that interfered with your ability to fulfill the course objectives?
  15. Indicate what grade you feel you earned in this course and the reasons for the grade you select.
  16. Describe your personal attitude toward this course.

PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY AND CATEGORY A AND C ACADEMIC STAFF

At the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point we evaluate our employees’ performance for five reasons:

  1. To enable you to fully understand what’s expected of you,
  2. To help you assess the quality of your past work,
  3. To give you constructive feedback from those with whom you work,
  4. To gain information we may use to make accurate personnel decisions on such matters as promotion and retention, and,
  5. To encourage you to do your best work.
ANNUAL REVIEW PROCEDURE for academic staff employees who are more than 10% of the calendar year

Each year, employee performance is evaluated by the person to whom the employee reports according to the following procedure:

Responsible Person(s) Actions
Person to Whom Employee Reports & Employee
  • Review employee’s current position description for accuracy.
  • Discuss progress toward objectives agreed upon at last review.
  • Agree upon objectives and priorities to be accomplished during the coming year.
Person to Whom Employee Reports
  • Submits a written evaluation report by May 1 to the Vice Chancellor’s Office to be included in the employee’s personnel file.
  • Includes employee’s position description, goals and objectives, and the complete record of their evaluation in the annual report signed by supervisor and employee.
  • Gives the employee a copy of the report.
Employee
  • Responds with written reaction to the evaluation to be included in the employee’s personnel file.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR ACADEMIC STAFF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MORE THAN 10% OF THE CALENDAR YEAR

In the second and fifth years of employment, in addition to the annual review, employees take part in a special evaluation program that has two elements, a questionnaire survey and a self-evaluation instrument according to this procedure:

Responsible Person(s) Actions
Associate Vice Chancellor for Personnel, Budget, and Grants
  • Provides training and orientation of all new hires to whom this procedure applies
  • Notifies employees up for supplemental review via campus mail and the persons to whom they report that a supplemental review needs to be done.
  • Notifies campus of who is being reviewed
Person to Whom Employee Reports & Employee
  • Jointly develop survey and a  list of survey recipients limited to those who know how the employee is carrying out the day-to-day duties and responsibilities of their job description.
Person to Whom Employee Reports
  • Completes a copy of the questionnaire.
  • Distributes copies to those on the recipient list and to those making a special request
Employee
  • Does a self-evaluation by completing the questionnaire and providing any other performance information to the person to whom employee reports.
Academic Staff Council
  • Acts as a resource for those participating in developmental reviews.
  • Provides guidance on all aspects of the non-instructional academic staff evaluation process, suggesting ways to improve specific individuals’ reviews.
  • Participates in the actual review process when requested by the employee or the person to whom the employee reports.
Person to Whom Employee Reports
  • Submits a written supplemental review report by May 1 to the Vice Chancellor’s Office to be included in the employee’s personnel file.
Employee
  • If unsatisfied with the evaluation, within 15 days after receiving the supplemental review report, writes a request to the person to whom the employee reports, asking that he/she conduct a review of the supplemental review addressing identified concerns.
Person to Whom Employee Reports
  • Reviews the matter and writes a response to the Employee within 15 days of receipt of the review request.
Employee
  • If unsatisfied with the review, files a grievance according to the mediation process described in the Faculty Handbook
Academic Staff Council
  • Assesses the supplemental review process every 4 years.
  • Has access to all review data for purposes of assessing the quality of reviews.
REVIEW POLICY FOR POSITIONS THAT ARE LESS THAN 10% OF THE CALENDAR YEAR

Any Academic Staff A or C position that is less than 10% of the calendar year, i.e. less than 5.2 weeks or 208 hours per calendar year, is not required to complete an annual review and/or supplemental review unless requested by the employee.

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW

The process for collection of data is designed to:  (1) allow for a review which is directly tied to the job description of the individual being evaluated and (2) to provide data, which, in the opinion of the employee being reviewed and the person to whom the employee reports, will contribute to the development of the employee.  In all cases, confidentiality will be maintained.  There are 3 mandatory, 1 optional components involved in this process:

COMPONENT RATIONALE MANDATORY/OPTIONAL
Demographic Information Provides a context in which the remainder of the information may be interpreted. Mandatory
General Questions Provide an overall assessment of the individual being evaluated.  Directors must include all questions as written here; other employees should reword questions to reflect their position descriptions. Mandatory
Optional Questions Provide additional assessment information.  Only select those questions that best address the responsibilities of the position description. Mandatory
Open-ended Questions Provide respondents with opportunities to comment on the strengths of individuals being evaluated, concerns about performance as related to job description, and suggestions for improvement. Mandatory

 

SAMPLE SURVEY

Employee should construct individual survey according to guidelines on previous pages.  Paper surveys or electronic surveys may be used.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Attached is a job description for the position held by the person being evaluated.  Please consider this carefully and evaluate the individual’s performance in relationship to this description.

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

Please provide the following information in order to provide a context within which the evaluation data can be interpreted.  Please circle the number that best indicates your knowledge of the person you are evaluating.

1 =    I have regular and frequent contact with this person, know and understand the position very well, and am very familiar with the person’s performance.

2 =    I have regular contact with the person being evaluated and am aware of the person’s job performance.

3 =    I have occasional contact with the person being evaluated and have some

         knowledge of the person’s job performance.

4 =    I know the person, but I am not knowledgeable about the position.  My evaluation is based upon the impression I have of the individual as a person.

5 =    I know who this person is, but not personally.  My evaluation is based upon my

         contacts with the office in which the person works and how well it functions.

6 =    I have contact with this person only through UWSP committees outside his/her unit.

7 =    I have little or no contact with this person and/or office, and, therefore, believe I am unqualified to offer an evaluation.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Based upon the job description of the individual being evaluated, answer each of the following questions to the best of your knowledge.  In the space that follows each item, please provide narrative comments that support your assessment.  The comments that you add will contribute substantially to the development of the individual.

Use the following scale in completing your assessment:

  1. Strongly Agree
  2. Agree
  3. Neutral
  4. Disagree
  5. Strongly Disagree

Note:  please leave blank any questions for which you feel you do not have sufficient information to form an opinion.

 

This individual:

  1. Is competent in dealing with personnel matters.  _____

               Comments:

  1. Provides strong leadership for the unit.  _____

              Comments:

  1. Communicates information accurately and clearly.  _____

               Comments:

  1. Performs administrative tasks efficiently.  _____

              Comments:

  1. In general, is an effective administrator.  _____

               Comments:

OPTIONAL QUESTIONS

Please provide your assessment of the performance of this individual as it relates to the criteria listed below.  In the space at the conclusion of this list, write any comments that you believe to be appropriate.

Use the following scale in completing your assessment:

  1. Strongly Agree
  2. Agree
  3. Neutral
  4. Disagree
  5. Strongly Disagree

Note:  please leave blank any questions for which you feel you do not have sufficient information to form an opinion.

LEADERSHIP

This individual:

  1. Has the trust and respect of those in the unit
  2. Functions effectively under pressure
  3. Motivates others to perform to their potential
  4. Demonstrates a concern for quality
  5. Maintains high standards of ethics, honesty, and integrity
  6. Provides effective leadership to the unit in establishment of priorities
  7. Supports faculty and academic staff in research activities
  8. Supports faculty and academic staff in teaching excellence
  9. Promotes high morale
  10. Deals with nonproductive behaviors effectively
  11. Finds creative solutions to problems
  12. Examines alternative solutions to problems
  13. Works appropriately toward finding solutions to problems and issues facing UWSP as an institution
  14. Creates a positive work environment
  15. Conducts meetings effectively
  16. Conducts meetings efficiently
  17. Utilizes effectively staff member’s talents and abilities
  18. Makes unpopular decisions when necessary
  19. Effectively uses available resources
  20. Supports faculty and academic staff in professional development
COMMUNICATION

This individual:

  1. Is effective in oral communication
  2. Is effective in written communication
  3. Communicates expectations clearly
  4. Represents the unit to the University positively
  5. Represents the unit to the community positively
  6. Involves appropriate personnel in decisions which affect them
  7. Listens respectfully to individuals
  8. Shares appropriate information
ADMINISTRATION

This individual:

  1. Demonstrates an awareness of the problems and issues facing UWSP as an institution
  2. Effectively carries out Affirmative Action guidelines
  3. Accepts responsibility for decisions made and actions taken
  4. Bases decisions on relevant evidence and information
  5. Follows through on commitments
  6. Delegates responsibility appropriately
  7. Works well with administrators
  8. Processes paperwork effectively and efficiently
  9. Understands the requirements of the position
  10. Maintains an appropriate balance between attention to details and broader responsibilities
PERSONNEL

This individual:

  1. Maintains confidentiality in personal matters
  2. Maintains confidentiality in professional matters
  3. Skillfully handles difficult situations involving people
  4. Effectively helps members of the unit resolve conflicts
  5. Skillfully recruits new personnel
  6. Helps new faculty/staff make positive transitions to UWSP
  7. Acts fairly and objectively in matters having to do with personnel decisions–titling, salary, retention, promotion, appointment type, and tenure
MISCELLANEOUS

This individual:

  1. Works for the development and improvement of UWSP as a whole
  2. Respects diverse opinions
  3. Is sensitive to the needs of others
  4. Is sensitive to the interest of others
  5. Accepts constructive criticism
  6. Responds with respect to differences in race, culture, gender and socio-economic status, and to individuals with disabilities
  7. Demonstrates an understanding and respect for students
  8. Encourages students to work to their potential
  9. Helps students develop responsibility for their conduct
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
  1. What are this individual’s strengths in performing the duties in the job description?
  2. What suggestions can you make for improvement in the individual’s job performance?

 

FACULTY TEACHING LOAD

This policy on faculty teaching load is the recommendation of faculty governance.  It is recognized that its full implementation is necessarily dependent upon the availability of adequate financial and physical resources.

This policy does not address time commitments associated with scholarship and service.  Performance expectations in all areas of faculty responsibility are provided in the document “Teaching, Scholarship, and Service:  Descriptions, Expectations, and Peer Evaluation for Retention, Tenure, and Merit” available from the Office of Academic Affairs as well as department personnel guidelines available from individual department offices.

ACADEMIC YEAR TEACHING LOAD
  1. The department chairperson is responsible for establishing individual teaching loads within the department.
  2. A full-time teaching load is 24 credit hours or the equivalent.
  3. Each faculty member should have a maximum of 3 separate class preparations per semester.
  4. Laboratory hours are typically equated to lecture hours on a 3 to 2 ratio.  Supervision of student teachers and practica are typically equated to lecture hours on a 2.5 to 1 ratio.
  5. There should be a maximum of 18 contact hours per week for each faculty member, except for faculty on temporary appointments.

In addition to the normal teaching assignment, the following are to be considered related activities not to be used as a basis for load reduction:

  • Academic advising when the majority of departmental colleagues advise students;
  • Maintenance of adequate office hours for student consultation;
  • Routine maintenance of equipment used for teaching;
  • Preparation of materials used in teaching;
  • Participation in professional organizations;
  • Study to remain current in one’s discipline;
  • Scholarship as normally expected of faculty in the department;
  • Service as normally expected of faculty in the department.
TEACHING LOAD FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS
  1. All department chairs are given an academic year contract plus a half-time summer appointment.
  2. The teaching load for department chairs is determined by the dean of the appropriate college.  Chairpersons normally teach 12 credits or the equivalent during an academic year.
LOAD RELIEF FOR THE CHAIRPERSON OF COMMON COUNCIL

0.50 FTE is assigned to the Chancellor’s Office to be used to provide load relief and replacement for the Chairperson of Common Council.  The affected department is authorized to hire a 0.50 FTE replacement for the Chairperson when deemed necessary by the department.

POLICY ON COURSE FORMATS AND CREDITS

UWSP follows the guidelines from UW System Administrative Policy 165 (formerly ACPS 4.0) (revised May 11, 1984), Item 3 on the Awarding of Credit.  The following statements clarify the policy as used at UWSP:

  1. That institutions shall award credit to students successfully completing approved instructional programs, or demonstrating competence or learning equivalent to that provided by such programs as either semester credits or quarter credits.
  2. That study leading to one semester credit represents an investment of time by the average student of not fewer than 48 hours for a combination of class contact in lectures and for preparation and study.  Alternatively, a student may demonstrate learning that is an equivalent to that established as the expected product of such a period of study.
  3. That study leading to one quarter credit is equal to two-thirds of a semester credit.
  4. That, in addition to class contact for lectures, at UWSP contact hours and/or learning equivalencies may also include: laboratories, discussion sessions, tutorials, recitations, mediated lectures/discussions, and other instructor-approved experiential learning activities such as field trips, job shadowing, information interviewing and internships.
ALLOCATION OF GPR FUNDED GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS

In determining the allocation of graduate assistant positions, the following criteria will be used:

  1. By December 15, Graduate Coordinators or Associate Deans, in consultation with the College Dean, will establish priorities and prepare a justification describing their needs for, and proposed use of, assistantship support during the next academic year.  These needs statements will provide the basis for determining the number of assistantships allocated by the Provost.  Once allocations are made, the recipient graduate program area will select students to receive assistantship support, decide the length and level of that support within the academic year, and identify faculty to serve as supervisors for the student(s).  Except in unusual circumstances, each student will receive at least one half of a full assistantship per semester.
  2. The primary consideration in making allocations is ensuring that the assistantship provides a valuable learning experience to the student.  Of secondary importance are requests based on the need for faculty assistance, the need to provide financial aid to students, or the need to generate more research and publications.  Tasks assigned to graduate assistants should be related to their professional development and degree program:  e.g., working with faculty on projects, research, curriculum, library holdings, and other professional endeavors.  These assignments should be geared towards improving the quality of the graduate program.
  3. Each graduate program area that applies for assistantships should receive at least one, provided it has more than one full time graduate student in the semester of application.
  4. In reviewing all applications for assistantships, a number of factors will be considered by the Provost or his designee:
  • the impact of the assistantship on other graduate programs;
  • the contribution of assistantship to the total university, e.g., public relations and service, potential for attracting extramural funding, assistance to other campus programs;
  • the requirements for research/thesis;
  • the past history/success of assistantships in the program;
  • the graduate SCH production of the area;
  • the number and type of graduate students enrolled in the program, i.e., active versus inactive, full-time versus part-time, out-of-state, out-of-nation (generally, programs with greater numbers of full-time, 9 credits or more, graduate students will be allocated a greater number of assistantships);
  • and the opinion/recommendation of a graduate program review.

INSTRUCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRADUATE ASSISTANTS

(Approved by Graduate Council: 27 March 1991)

INTRODUCTION

Along with specific undergraduate programs, several master’s degree programs have been designated as components of the select mission of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.  Traditionally for the master’s degree, programs involve significant mentorship of the students by the graduate faculty.  Graduate students are directed by a major professor, and where appropriate, a graduate committee.  These professors provide close supervision of the student’s program plan and also provide a teacher/scholar model for the aspiring graduate student to emulate.

Graduate assistantship experiences have been established which enhance this tutoring process.  Assistantships provide additional benefits by providing financial support to the student, by providing work/study or “hands on” experiences for the student, and by providing graduate programs with additional human resources to carry out their academic missions.

At the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point we currently identify three types of graduate assistantships - program or project assistant (PA), research assistant (RA), and graduate assistant (GA).  The project assistant category is little used and is primarily reserved for non-research related extramurally supported activities where the assistantship duties are prescribed by the funding source.  The research assistant’s duties are designed to work with a faculty member on a specific research project directly related to the student’s degree.  In this position the student should be able to interact with a faculty member who can serve as a good role model.  The RA duties are also usually specified by an external funding source.  The graduate assistant’s duties have been described in previous policies, approved by the Graduate Faculty.

CURRENT DUTIES ASSIGNED TO GRADUATE ASSISTANTS

University of Wisconsin System interpreted policy does not allow the use of graduate teaching assistants (TA’s) on the comprehensive university campuses as the “instructors of record.”  At UWSP a graduate student may assist with instruction but may not be the instructor of record.  The instructor of record is responsible for class activities, the syllabus, assignments, and, in general, the learning environment and is the person whose name appears in the timetable.  The instructor of record is the individual who teaches the academic content of the course, evaluates and grades the students, and structures the course.

The (GA) duties approved by the Graduate Council in 1982 state that graduate assistants “may assist with instruction, paper grading, assisting faculty members in laboratory sections and research projects; development of materials used in the classroom, and assist in departmental libraries, tutorial, and listening centers, etc.  Duties should be professionally related to the degree sought.”  These duties are consistent with those allowable by the UW System and with the policies of other UW comprehensive campuses.  Graduate assistants are normally utilized only in disciplines that already have a significant graduate component so that the students’ comprehensive experiences are professionally related to their degrees.  Most importantly, when graduate students are utilized directly in the classroom, they are to assist the instructor of record.  They are never to be utilized to provide the primary instruction in a class.  There are currently graduate assistants in such programs as Soils, Water, Forestry, Biology, and Communication Sciences and Disorders.

Typically, these graduate students at UWSP assist with the laboratory and/or discussion sections of large freshman and sophomore classes that are taught by a faculty member with a terminal degree in the discipline.  In fact, during the last review of the College of Natural Resources, the outside consultants recommended that graduate assistants be used both in the classroom and for research purposes.  In the former instance, the professor in charge of the class provides the primary instruction and has the responsibility of determining the final student grade in the class.

The assistance provided by a graduate student may, for example, utilize a seminar model.  It is common in this model to have the students actually do the majority of the lecturing to a class while the professor in charge may focus on conceptual principles and then analyze the students’ presentations.  The use of graduate students to supervise an undergraduate class under appropriate controls is a variation of this commonly accepted model.

When graduate students currently assist with instruction, they share the general faculty’s responsibility for quality undergraduate teaching.  Since these graduate students would be serving an apprenticeship, they should be monitored and receive careful guidance from the department.  This guidance may take the form of seminars, conferences, observations by experienced teachers, or other methods designed to develop their instructional skills.

While maintaining the primary commitment to quality undergraduate programs, it is important that each department have the flexibility and freedom to delineate more specifically the duties of the graduate assistants in the context of those policies approved by the Graduate Council.  It is the appropriate responsibility of the chair of the department or the associate dean and the Dean of the College to ensure their programs’ quality of instruction for both the graduate and undergraduate students.

The utilization of individuals without a master’s degree to assist with instruction understandably causes concern among those who believe a terminal degree is essential to assure quality undergraduate instruction at UWSP.  Since the use of graduate assistants in undergraduate classes potentially affects students from many disciplines, it is appropriate that the University develop minimum guidelines for the selection, training, and supervision of graduate students used to assist very directly and substantially with undergraduate instruction, in courses taken by a broad spectrum of students.

In order to differentiate graduate students who assist with instruction and are utilized directly in the classroom from those who provide more general service to the university or indirect instructional assistance (library research, grading of papers, etc.), a new category of assistantships has been proposed.  This category is a subset of graduate assistants, would be labeled Instructional Assistants (IA), and is currently being tested as a viable teaching approach in the Division of Communication.

In the spring of 1988, the Graduate Council approved a pilot project submitted by the Division of Communication to the Council.  This project was designed as one of the Division’s responses to the Graduate Program Review that had just been completed.  The project involved the use of graduate students in Comm 101 and had the approval of the Division, the Dean of COFAC, the Dean of Graduate Studies, and the Vice Chancellor.  The Graduate Council approved the project as a pilot study for two years and requested that the Undergraduate and Graduate Program Review Committees evaluate the project’s impact, success, and deficiencies with respect to graduate and undergraduate education before a policy was constructed.  The Council was impressed with the organization and goals of the project.  The IA’s would receive a training experience of 40 hours prior to the Fall Semester; the IA Coordinator would select the texts, organize the course, construct the syllabus, and formulate assignments.  In essence, there would be consistency across sections in Comm 101, and the contact hours would be increased from 2 to 3 with a greater emphasis on formal speaking.  The Faculty Senate accepted this as an information item.  Subsequently, the chair of the Academic Affairs Committee received a letter and oral requests to submit material to the Faculty Senate which would allow the faculty to approve or disapprove the use of graduate students as IA’s.  A policy was forwarded from the Academic Affairs Committee in December of 1988 before the initial results from the pilot project were known.  The issue was debated, an array of amendments was offered, and the matter was resubmitted to the Academic Affairs Committee.  The Chairs of the Academic Affairs Committee and Graduate Council discussed the situation and agreed to develop together a viable policy with the initial results of the pilot project as an appendix and submit this to the Faculty Senate for a vote on whether graduate students may be used under careful supervision as instructional assistants in select undergraduate courses.  The following section is the proposed policy for the limited and controlled use of IA’s in the classroom.

SELECTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANTS (IA’S)

(Approved by Faculty Senate: 3 May 1989)

Prologue

Efforts must continuously be made by academic units to ensure that the quality of undergraduate instruction at UWSP is maintained and enhanced wherever possible.  A program for the utilization of Instructional Assistants should have as its primary goal the increase in the quality of its educational product - the graduates of its baccalaureate and masters’ programs.  The rationale to develop a program to utilize Instructional Assistants must be the enhancement of quality instruction for the affected undergraduates and of the academic benefit to the graduate students involved.  It has long been an irony of higher education that most individuals who teach in a university, government agencies, or businesses have had little or no formal instructional training.  Many of our graduate students will be involved in both formal and informal teaching after graduation.  It is appropriate, therefore, for them to learn teaching techniques on a campus that prides itself on the quality of its teaching.  Teaching techniques could be learned in a class in which the graduate students teach each other or through IA’s teaching undergraduates.  The latter possibility allows the University to tap into one of its major strengths.

The following policies and procedures are intended to provide broad guidelines for schools and departments or divisions that wish to utilize IA’s in their program.  Additional specific guidelines at the unit level will have to be developed.  It is expected that the criteria for the selection, training, and evaluation of the IA’s shall be similar to those utilized by a department when hiring individuals with only the bachelor’s degree under other employment categories.

Use of Instructional Assistants

Instructional Assistants shall be used only in freshman and sophomore level classes, not in junior or senior level classes, and not in graduate-only or in graduate/undergraduate classes.

Approval

A plan, specific in nature, to utilize Instructional Assistants in a course(s) for a school or department or division must be approved by the Graduate Council, based on the benefits accruing to the students involved.  Graduate students may not be used in the classroom unless an academically rigorous program of selection, training and evaluation has been approved through faculty governance procedures and by the Chancellor.

The IA program plan shall be submitted initially to the Graduate Council and then ultimately through the Faculty Senate at least during the first semester prior to the academic year that the IA program is proposed for implementation.  Normally the plan will be approved for a two-year trial period.  An assessment of the IA program, based on student and faculty evaluations which focus on methodology and content, will be made by the end of the second year by a subcommittee of the Graduate Council and reported to the Faculty Senate.  If the IA program is recommended to continue, the utilization of IA’s will be incorporated into the normal 5 year cycle of undergraduate/graduate program review thereafter.

Coordination

A program for Instructional Assistants shall be supervised by the department chair or associate dean and coordinated by a member of the graduate faculty of the unit involved, who will be responsible for the selection, orientation, training, and evaluation of the graduate student participants.  A positive assessment of the IA program will be contingent on the success of these early steps.  The IA coordinator, selected by the professionals in the discipline, will have the background, knowledge, expertise, and willingness to provide a viable instructional training experience for the graduate students selected for the IA program.

Selection

The departmental or school IA coordinator and the chair/associate dean shall utilize the graduate student’s academic record, experience, letters of reference, and interviews to select individuals to serve as Instructional Assistants.  The selection process will include goal statements by the applicants, indicating how the Instructional Assistant experiences will fit into their long range career plans, which should be advanced by the teaching experience received at UWSP.  Preference will be given to those graduate students who have had previous teaching experience and/or who can demonstrate a direct benefit derived from the IA experience in their master’s program of study and career goals.

Training

Instructional Assistants will attend an academically meaningful program focused on pedagogical methods and techniques as well as course content prior to the beginning of each semester.  This training will include a discussion of the course(s), with which each will assist, and focus on the course goals and content, teaching techniques, and evaluation strategies.  Having the instructional responsibilities for the course(s), the IA coordinator will ensure that the IA’s adhere to such normal teaching practices as having adequate and fixed office hours as well as returning tests and evaluations to their students in a timely fashion.

During the semester, the IA’s will meet regularly with the IA coordinator to discuss the instructional strategies utilized in the course(s) being taught.  The IA’s will be eligible to receive 1-2 graduate credits for the orientation and weekly instructional seminar (i.e. Seminar in Instructional Practices).  The conduct of this program as a useful educational experience will be part of the evaluative assessment.

Supervision

The IA coordinator will visit each IA’s class at least 3-5 times a semester to provide an evaluation and feedback on each IA’s performance.  Additionally, for example, someone beside the IA coordinator (a mentor) could also be assigned to each IA as a resource to advise and evaluate the graduate student as an IA.  The outcome of these classroom visits, student evaluations, performance in the graduate seminar, and general progress toward the master’s degree, will be utilized to determine whether the IA may be reappointed in subsequent semesters and whether the IA program is a successful academic experience for both the undergraduate and graduate students involved.

 

SECTION 16 - WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTERS UWS 14, 16 - 22

(Chapters UWS 1 - 13, and 15 are in Chapter 4A - Personnel Rules  of this Handbook.)

CHAPTER UWS 14 STUDENT ACADEMIC DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

CHAPTER UWS 16 OTHER APPOINTMENTS

CHAPTER UWS 17 STUDENT NONACADEMIC DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

CHAPTER UWS 18 CONDUCT ON UNIVERSITY LANDS

CHAPTER UWS 19 SICK LEAVE

CHAPTER UWS 20 NONRESIDENT TUITION DETERMINATION PROCEDURES AND APPEALS

CHAPTER UWS 21 USE OF UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

CHAPTER UWS 22 ACCOMMODATION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

 

SECTION 17 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN AND UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STEVENS POINT CHAPTER 17 NONACADEMIC STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

The University of Wisconsin “Student Nonacademic Disciplinary Procedures,” Chapter UWS 17 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Rules of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, were adopted in January,1976, and revised September, 1996, September, 2009, September 2013* (Approved by Faculty Senate 2/19/2014). Additional statements for the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point are indicated in BOLDFACE type. These added statements, in conjunction with Chapter UWS 17, constitute Chapter UWSP 17.

17.01 Policy statement. The missions of the University of Wisconsin System and its individual institutions can be realized only if the university’s teaching, learning, research and service activities occur in living and learning environments that are safe and free from violence, harassment, fraud, theft, disruption and intimidation. In promoting such environments, the university has a responsibility to address student nonacademic misconduct; this responsibility is separate from and independent of any civil or criminal action resulting from a student’s conduct. This chapter defines nonacademic misconduct, provides university procedures for effectively addressing misconduct, and offers educational responses to misconduct. The University of Wisconsin System is committed to respecting students’ constitutional rights. Nothing in this chapter is intended to restrict students’ constitutional rights, including rights of freedom of speech or to peaceably assemble with others.

17.02 Definitions. In this chapter:

17.02(1) “Chief administrative officer” means the chancellor of an institution or dean of a campus or their designees.

17.02(2) “Clear and convincing evidence” means information that would persuade a reasonable person to have a firm belief that a proposition is more likely true than not true. It is a higher standard of proof than “preponderance of the evidence.”

17.02(3) “Days” means calendar days.

17.02(4) “Delivered” means sent by electronic means to the student’s official university email address and, in addition, provided by any of the following methods:

  1. Given personally.
  2. Placed in the student’s official university mailbox.
  3. Mailed by regular first class United States mail to the student’s current address as maintained by the institution.

17.02(5) “Disciplinary file” means the record maintained by the student affairs officer responsible for student discipline.

17.02(6) “Disciplinary probation” means a status in which a student may remain enrolled in the university only upon the condition that the student complies with specified standards of conduct or other requirements or restrictions on privileges, for a specified period of time, not to exceed two years.

17.02(7) “Disciplinary sanction” means any action listed in s. UWS 17.10(1) taken in response to student nonacademic misconduct.

17.02(8) “Expulsion” means termination of student status with resultant loss of all student rights and privileges.

17.02(9) “Hearing examiner” means an individual, other than the investigating officer, appointed by the chief administrative officer in accordance with s. UWS 17.06(2) for the purpose of conducting a hearing under s. UWS 17.12

17.02(10) “Institution” means any university, or an organizational equivalent designated by the board, and the university of Wisconsin colleges.

17.02(11) “Investigating officer” means an individual, or his or her designee, appointed by the chief administrative officer of each institution, to conduct investigations of nonacademic misconduct under this chapter.

17.02(12) “Nonacademic misconduct hearing committee” or “committee” means the committee appointed pursuant to s. UWS 17.07 to conduct hearings under s. UWS 17.12.

17.02(13) “Preponderance of the evidence” means information that would persuade a reasonable person that a proposition is more probably true than not true. It is a lower standard of proof than “clear and convincing evidence” and is the minimum standard for a finding of responsibility under this chapter.

17.02(14) “Student” means any person who is registered for study in an institution for the academic period in which the misconduct occurred, or between academic periods, for continuing students.

17.02(15) “Student affairs officer” means the dean of students or student affairs officer designated by the chief administrative officer to coordinate disciplinary hearings and carry out duties described in this chapter.

17.02(16) “Suspension” means a loss of student status for a specified length of time, not to exceed two years, with resultant loss of all student rights and privileges.

17.02(17) “University lands” means all real property owned by, leased by, or otherwise subject to the control of the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

17.03 Consistent institutional policies. Each institution is authorized to adopt policies consistent with this chapter. A copy of such policies shall be filed with the board of regents and the University of Wisconsin System office of academic affairs.

17.04 Notice to students. Each institution shall publish ch. UWS 17 on its website and shall make ch. UWS 17 and any institutional policies implementing ch. UWS 17 freely available to students through the website or other means.

17.05 Designation of investigating officer. The chief administrative officer of each institution shall designate an investigating officer or officers for allegations of student nonacademic misconduct. The investigating officer shall investigate student nonacademic misconduct and initiate procedures for nonacademic misconduct under s. UWS 17.11.

17.06 Non-academic misconduct hearing examiner.

17.06(1) The chief administrative officer of each institution, in consultation with faculty, academic staff, and student representatives, shall adopt policies providing for the designation of a student nonacademic misconduct hearing examiner to fulfill the responsibilities of the nonacademic misconduct hearing examiner in this chapter.

17.06(2) A hearing examiner shall be selected by the chief administrative officer from the faculty and staff of the institution, pursuant to the policies adopted under sub. (1).

17.07 Non-academic misconduct hearing committee.

17.07(1) The chief administrative officer of each institution, in consultation with faculty, academic staff, and student representatives, shall adopt policies providing for the establishment of a student nonacademic misconduct hearing committee to fulfill the responsibilities of the nonacademic misconduct hearing committee in this chapter.

17.07(2) A student nonacademic misconduct hearing committee shall consist of at least three persons, including at least one student or students, except that no such committee shall be constituted with a majority of members who are students. The presiding officer shall be appointed by the chief administrative officer. The presiding officer and at least one other member shall constitute a quorum at any hearing held pursuant to due notice.

17.08 Nonacademic misconduct occurring on or outside of university lands.

17.08(1) MISCONDUCT ON UNIVERSITY LANDS. Except as provided in s. UWS 17.08(2), the provisions contained in this chapter shall apply to the student conduct described in s. UWS 17.09 that occurs on university lands or at university-sponsored events.

17.08(2) MISCONDUCT OUTSIDE OF UNIVERSITY LANDS. The provisions contained in this chapter may apply to the student conduct described in s. UWS 17.09 that occurs outside of university lands only when, in the judgment of the investigating officer, the conduct adversely affects a substantial university interest. In determining whether the conduct adversely affects a substantial university interest, the investigating officer shall consider whether the conduct meets one or more of the following conditions:

  1. The conduct constitutes or would constitute a serious criminal offense, regardless of the existence of any criminal proceedings.
  2. The conduct indicates that the student presented or may present a danger or threat to the health or safety of himself, herself or others.
  3. The conduct demonstrates a pattern of behavior that seriously impairs the university’s ability to fulfill its teaching, research, or public service missions.

17.09 Conduct subject to disciplinary action. In accordance with s. UWS 17.08, the university may discipline a student for engaging in, attempting to engage in, or assisting others to engage in any of the following types of nonacademic misconduct:

17.09(1) DANGEROUS CONDUCT. Conduct that endangers or threatens the health or safety of oneself or another person.

17.09(2) SEXUAL ASSAULT. Conduct defined in s. 940.225, Stats.

17.09(3) STALKING. Conduct defined in s. 940.32, Stats.

17.09(4) HARASSMENT. Conduct defined in s. 947.013, Stats.

17.09(5) HAZING. Conduct defined in s. 948.51, Stats.

17.09(6) ILLEGAL USE, POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. Use, possession, manufacture, or distribution of alcoholic beverages or of marijuana, narcotics, or other controlled substances, except as expressly permitted by law or university policy.

17.09(7) UNAUTHORIZED USE OF OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. Unauthorized possession of, use of, moving of, tampering with, damage to, or destruction of university property or the property of others.

17.09(8) DISRUPTION OF UNIVERSITY-AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES. Conduct that obstructs or impairs university-run or university-authorized activities, or that interferes with or impedes the ability of a person to participate in university-run or university-authorized activities.

17.09(9) FORGERY OR FALSIFICATION. Unauthorized possession of or fraudulent creation, alteration, or misuse of any university or other governmental document, record, key, electronic device, or identification.

17.09(10) MISUSE OF COMPUTING RESOURCES. Conduct that involves any of the following:

  1. Failure to comply with laws, license agreements, and contracts governing university computer network, software, and hardware use.
  2. Use of university computing resources for unauthorized commercial purposes or personal gain.
  3. Failure to protect a personal password or university-authorized account.
  4. Breach of computer security, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized access to computing resources.

For more information regarding Information Technology policies, please refer to the following Web site: http://www. uwsp.edu/it/about/policies/.

17.09(11) FALSE STATEMENT OR REFUSAL TO COMPLY REGARDING A UNIVERSITY MATTER. Making a knowingly false oral or written statement to any university employee or agent of the university regarding a university matter, or refusal to comply with a reasonable request on a university matter.

17.09(12) VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW. Conduct that constitutes a criminal offense as defined by state or federal law.

17.09(13) SERIOUS AND REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL LAW. Serious and repeated off-campus violations of municipal law.

17.09(14) VIOLATION OF CH. UWS 18. Conduct that violates ch. UWS 18, including, but not limited to, provisions regulating fire safety, theft, and dangerous weapons.

17.09(15) VIOLATION OF UNIVERSITY RULES. Conduct that violates any published university rules, regulations, or policies, including provisions contained in university contracts with students.

17.09(16) NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS. Conduct that violates a sanction, requirement, or restriction imposed in connection with previous disciplinary action.

17.10 Disciplinary sanctions.

17.10(1) The following are the disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed for nonacademic misconduct, in accordance with the procedures of ss. UWS 17.11 to 17.13, are any of the following:

  1. A written warning or reprimand.
  2. Denial of specified university privileges.
  3. Restitution.
  4. Educational or service sanctions, including community service.
  5. Disciplinary probation.
  6. Imposition of reasonable terms and conditions on continued student status.
  7. Removal from a course in progress.
  8. Enrollment restrictions on a course or program.
  9. Suspension.
  10. Expulsion.

17.10(2) One or more of the disciplinary sanctions listed in sub. (1) may be imposed for an incident of nonacademic misconduct.

17.10(3) Disciplinary sanctions shall not include the termination or revocation of student financial aid; however, this shall not be interpreted as precluding the individual operation of rules or standards governing eligibility for student financial aid under which the imposition of a disciplinary sanction could result in disqualification of a student for financial aid.

17.11 Disciplinary procedure. (1) The investigating officer may proceed in accordance with this section to impose, subject to hearing and appeal rights, one or more of the disciplinary sanctions listed in s. UWS 17.10(1).

17.11(2) CONFERENCE WITH STUDENT. When the investigating officer concludes that proceedings under this section are warranted, the investigating officer shall promptly contact the student in person, by telephone, or by electronic mail to offer to discuss the matter with the student. The purpose of this discussion is to permit the investigating officer to review with the student the basis for his or her belief that the student engaged in nonacademic misconduct, and to afford the student an opportunity to respond. If the student does not respond to the investigating officer’s offer to discuss the matter, the investigating officer may proceed to make a determination on the basis of the available information.

17.11(3) DETERMINATION BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER THAT NO DISCIPLINARY SANCTION IS WARRANTED. If, as a result of a discussion under sub. (2), or review of available information, the investigating officer determines that nonacademic misconduct did not in fact occur, or that no disciplinary sanction is warranted under the circumstances, the matter will be considered resolved without the necessity for further action.

17.11(4) PROCESS FOLLOWING DETERMINATION BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER THAT NONACADEMIC MISCONDUCT OCCURRED.

17.11(4)(a) If, as a result of a discussion or review of available information under sub. (2), or review of available information, the investigating officer determines that nonacademic misconduct did occur and that one or more of the disciplinary sanctions listed under s. UWS 17.10(1) should be recommended, the investigating officer shall prepare a written report which shall contain the following:

  1. A description of the alleged misconduct.
  2. A description of all information available to the university regarding the alleged misconduct. Such information shall be available to the student upon request, except as may be precluded by applicable state or federal law.
  3. Specification of the sanction sought.
  4. Notice of the student’s right to a hearing.
  5. A copy of this chapter and of the institutional procedures adopted to implement this section.

17.11(4)(b) The written report shall be delivered to the student.

17.11(4)(c) A student who receives a written report under this section has the right to a hearing under s. UWS 17.12 to contest the determination that nonacademic misconduct occurred, the choice of disciplinary sanction, or both.

  1. Where the disciplinary sanction sought is one of those listed in s. UWS 17.10(1)(a) to (g), and if the student desires a hearing, the student shall file a written request with the student affairs officer within 10 days of the date the written report is delivered to the student. If the student does not request a hearing within this period, the determination of non-academic misconduct shall be regarded as final, and the disciplinary sanction sought shall be imposed.
  2. Where the disciplinary sanction sought is one of those listed in s. UWS 17.10(1)(h) to (j), the investigating officer shall forward a copy of the written report under par. (b) to the student affairs officer. The student affairs officer shall, upon receipt of the written report, proceed under s. UWS 17.12 to schedule a hearing on the matter. A hearing shall be conducted unless the student waives, in writing, the right to such a hearing.

Students who choose to appeal disciplinary sanctions must do so in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the written decision, and shall state in the appeal exactly what is being appealed, whether the findings, decision, sanctions, or all three. In cases heard by an investigating officer, the appeal shall be to the hearing examiner. In cases heard by a hearing examiner, the appeal shall be made to the Dean of Students. An appellate decision by the Dean of Students may be appealed by the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs or Chancellor, who may review the decision at his/her discretion.

If, during a hearing involving a disciplinary sanction listed s. UWSP 17.10 (1) (a) to (h), the hearing officer concludes that suspension or expulsion should be sought rather than a lesser sanction, the hearing officer may cause a statement of charges to be served upon the student in accordance with UWSP 17.11 (4).

17.12 Hearing.

17.12(1) A student who requests a hearing, or for whom a hearing is scheduled under s. UWS 17.11(4)(c)2, shall have the right to decide whether the matter will be heard by a hearing examiner or a hearing committee.

17.12(2) If a student requests a hearing under s. UWS 17.11(4)(c)1, or a hearing is required to be scheduled under s. UWS 17.11(4)(c)2, the student affairs officer shall take the necessary steps to convene the hearing and shall schedule it within 15 days of receipt of the request or written report. The hearing shall be conducted within 45 days of receipt of the request or written report, unless a different time period is mutually agreed upon by the student and investigating officer, or is ordered or permitted by the hearing examiner or committee.

17.12(3) No less than 5 days in advance of the hearing, the hearing examiner or committee shall obtain from the investigating officer, in writing, a full explanation of the facts upon which the determination of misconduct was based, and shall provide the student with access to or copies of the investigating officer’s explanation, together with any other materials provided to the hearing examiner or committee by the investigating officer, including any additional available information of the type described in s. UWS 17.11(4)(a)2.

17.12(4) The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the following guidance and requirements:

17.12(4)(a) The hearing process shall further the educational purposes and reflect the university context of non-academic misconduct proceedings. The process need not conform to state or federal rules of criminal or civil procedure, except as expressly provided in ch. UWS 17.

17.12(4)(b) The student shall have the right to question adverse witnesses, the right to present information and witnesses, the right to be heard on his or her own behalf, and the right to be accompanied by an advisor of the student’s choice. The advisor may be a lawyer. In cases where the recommended disciplinary sanction is identified in s. UWS 17.10 (1) (a) to (h), the advisor may counsel the student, but may not directly question adverse witnesses, present information or witnesses, or speak on behalf of the student except at the discretion of the hearing examiner or committee. In cases where the recommended disciplinary sanction is identified in s. UWS 17.10(1)(i) or (j), or where the student has been charged with a crime in connection with the same conduct for which the disciplinary sanction is sought, the advisor may question adverse witnesses, present information and witnesses, and speak on behalf of the student. In accordance with the educational purposes of the hearing, the student is expected to respond on his or her own behalf to questions asked of him or her during the hearing.

17.12(4)(c) The hearing examiner or committee shall admit information that has reasonable value in proving the facts, but may exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious testimony. The hearing examiner or committee shall observe recognized legal privileges.

17.12(4)(c) The hearing examiner or committee:

  1. Shall admit information that has reasonable value in proving the facts, but may exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious testimony.
  2. Shall observe recognized legal privileges.
  3. May take reasonable steps to maintain order, and to adopt procedures for the questioning of a witness appropriate to the circumstances of that witness’s testimony, provided, however, whatever procedure is adopted, the student is allowed to effectively question the witness.

17.12(4)(e) The hearing examiner or committee shall prepare written findings of fact and a written statement of its decision based upon the record of the hearing.

17.12(4)(f) A hearing examiner’s or committee’s finding of nonacademic misconduct shall be based on one of the following:

  1. Clear and convincing evidence, when the sanction to be imposed is one of those listed in s. UWS 17.10(1)(h) to (j).
  2. A preponderance of the evidence, when the sanction to be imposed is one of those listed in s. UWS 17.10(1)(a) to (g).
  3. A preponderance of the evidence, regardless of the sanction to be imposed, in all cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

17.12(4)(g) The hearing examiner or committee may impose one or more of the disciplinary sanctions listed in s. UWS 17.10(1)(a) to (g) that differs from the recommendation of the investigating officer. Sanctions under s. UWS 17.10(1)(h) to (j) may not be imposed unless previously recommended by the investigating officer.

17.12(4)(h) The hearing shall be conducted by the hearing examiner or committee, and the university’s case against the student shall be presented by the investigating officer or his or her designee.

17.12(4)(i) The decision of the hearing examiner or committee shall be prepared within 14 days of the hearing, and delivered to the student by e-mail and first class United States mail to his or her current address as maintained by the institution. If further investigation is needed prior to a decision being made that may go beyond the 14 days, an e-mail will be sent to the student alerting them and providing a date a decision will be made. The decision shall become final within 14 days of the date of the written decision, unless an appeal is taken under s. UWS 17.13.

17.12(4)(j) If a party fails to appear at a scheduled hearing and to proceed, the hearing examiner or committee may either dismiss the case or, based upon the information provided, find that the student committed the misconduct alleged.

17.12(4)(k) Disciplinary hearings are subject to the Wisconsin open meetings law and may be closed if the student whose case is being heard requests a closed hearing or if the hearing examiner or committee determines that it is necessary to hold a closed hearing, as permitted under the Wisconsin open meetings law. Deliberations of the committee shall be held in closed session, in accordance with s. 19.85, Stats. As such, proper notice and other applicable rules shall be followed.

17.13 Appeal to the chief administrative officer.

17.13(1) Where the sanction prescribed by the hearing examiner or committee is one of those listed in s. UWS 17.10(1)(h) through (j), the student may appeal to the chief administrative officer within 14 days of the date of the written decision to review the decision of the hearing examiner or committee, based upon the record. In such a case, the chief administrative officer has 30 days from receipt of the student’s appeal to respond and shall sustain the decision of the nonacademic misconduct hearing examiner or committee unless the chief administrative officer finds any of the following:

  1. The information in the record does not support the findings or decision of the hearing examiner or committee.
  2. Appropriate procedures were not followed by the nonacademic misconduct hearing examiner or committee and material prejudice to the student resulted.
  3. The decision was based on factors proscribed by state or federal law.

17.13(2) If the chief administrative officer makes a finding under sub. (1), he or she may return the matter for consideration by a different hearing examiner or committee, or may invoke an appropriate remedy of his or her own.

17.14 Discretionary appeal to the board of regents. Institutional decisions under ss. UWS 17.11 to 17.13 shall be final, except that the board of regents may, at its discretion, grant a review upon the record.

17.15 Settlement. The procedures set forth in this chapter allow the university and a student to enter into a settlement agreement regarding the alleged misconduct, after proper notice has been given. Any such agreement and its terms shall be in writing and signed by the student and the investigating officer or student affairs officer. The case is concluded when a copy of the signed agreement is delivered to the student.

17.16 Effect of discipline within the institution. A student who, at the time of commencement, is subject to a continuing disciplinary sanction under s. UWS 17.10(1) or unresolved disciplinary charges as a result of a report under s. UWS 17.11, shall not be awarded a degree during the pendency of the sanction or disciplinary proceeding.

17.17 Effect of suspension or expulsion within the university system. (1) Suspension or expulsion shall be system-wide in effect and shall be noted on an individual’s transcript, with suspension noted only for the duration of the suspension period.

17.17(2) A student who is suspended from one institution in the University of Wisconsin System may not enroll in another institution in the system until the suspension has expired by its own terms, except as provided in s. UWS 17.18.

17.17(3) A student who is expelled from one institution in the University of Wisconsin System may not enroll in another institution in the system, except as provided in s. 17.18.

17.17(4) A person who is in a state of suspension or expulsion from the university under this chapter, or who leaves or withdraws from the university while under nonacademic misconduct charges under this chapter, may not be present on any campus without the written consent of the chief administrative officer of that campus.

17.17(5) Upon completion of a suspension period, a student who is academically eligible may re-enroll in the institution which suspended him or her, provided all conditions from previous disciplinary sanctions have been met.

17.18 Petition for restoration of rights after suspension or expulsion.
A student who has been suspended may petition to have his or her student status, rights, and privileges restored before the suspension has expired by its own terms under s. 17.17(2). A student who has been expelled may petition for the right to apply for readmission. The petition shall be in writing and directed to the chief administrative officer of the institution from which the student was suspended or expelled or of a different university of Wisconsin institution to which the student seeks admission. The chief administrative officer shall make the readmission decision.

17.19 Emergency Suspension. (1) The chief administrative officer may impose an emergency suspension on a student, pending final institutional action on a report of nonacademic misconduct, in accordance with the procedures of this section.

17.19(2) The chief administrative officer of each institution may impose an emergency suspension on a student when all of the following conditions are met:

  1. The investigating officer has made a reasonable attempt to offer the student the opportunity for discussion, either in person or by telephone;
  2. The investigating officer recommends a sanction of suspension or expulsion; and
  3. The chief administrative officer concludes, based on the available information, that the misconduct occurred and that the student’s continued presence on campus meets one or more of the following conditions:
  1. Would constitute a potential for serious harm to the student;
  2. Would constitute a potential for serious harm to others;
  3. Would pose a threat of serious disruption of university-run or university-authorized activities; or
  4. Would constitute a potential for serious damage to university facilities or property.

17.19(3) If the chief administrative officer determines that an emergency suspension is warranted under sub. (2), he or she shall promptly have written notification of the emergency suspension delivered to the student. The chief administrative officer’s decision to impose an emergency suspension shall be effective immediately when delivered to the student and is final.

17.19(4) Where an emergency suspension is imposed, the hearing on the underlying allegations of misconduct shall be held, either on or outside of university lands, within 21 days of the imposition of the emergency suspension, unless the student agrees to a later date.

17.19(5) An emergency suspension imposed in accordance with this section shall be in effect until the decision in the hearing on the underlying charges pursuant to s. UWS 17.12 is rendered or the chief administrative officer rescinds the emergency suspension. In no case shall an emergency suspension remain in effect for longer than 30 days, unless the student agrees to a longer period.

17.19(6) If the chief administrative officer determines that none of the conditions specified in sub. (2)(c) are present, but that misconduct may have occurred, the case shall proceed in accordance with s. UWS 17.12.