51ÊÓƵ

Purpose:

Outline procedures by which all CASL faculty, both LEO and tenure stream, can address concerns over intimidating and hostile work environments caused by unprofessional behavior. 

CASL takes violations of professional conduct standards seriously. Professional conduct is an important part of the criterion used for tenure, promotion, merit pay considerations, and retention and appropriately documented failure to follow the SPG policy can negatively impact all of those areas. No one should be made to feel vulnerable or intimidated in a professional setting that should be respectful and safe. 

Applicability:

The procedures described in this document apply to all faculty, including LEOs and faculty holding administrative positions, in the College of Arts, Sciences and Letters at the University of Michigan - Dearborn. The 51ÊÓƵ Standard Practice Guide outlines professional standards to be upheld by all faculty and the due process requirements of the LEO contract uphold similar principles for expected conduct. 

SPG Language:

"Professional Standards for Faculty" () is excerpted below:

"This policy is specific to conduct which is not protected and covered under the principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom but rather conduct that the community would view as counter to its norms and expectations and which hinders other members of the community in the exercise of their professional responsibilities and academic freedoms. The University is prepared to act to prevent or remedy behaviors that interfere with, or adversely affect, a person's ability to learn or do his/her job.

• The following types of behaviors may be subject to professional sanction, including discipline up to and including dismissal in accordance with the appropriate procedures.
• These behaviors include oral, written, visual, or physical actions by a member of faculty that:
  • Have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's employment or educational performance; and/or
  • Have the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive or abusive climate for an individual's employment, academic pursuits, living environment, or participation in a University activity. 

Some examples of conduct that may violate this policy include but are not limited to: threatening words, actions, or comments; bullying behavior (defined as a persistent pattern of negative behavior based upon a real or perceived power imbalance which belittles another member of a unit); disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the University; forcible detention; threats of physical harm to, or harassment of another member of the University community; and behavior that results in a hostile working or learning environment. This list is not exhaustive, and faculty may be subject to sanction and disciplinary action for any type of conduct, which although not specifically enumerated, meets the standard for unacceptable faculty behavior set forth above."

Specific Area of Focus:

Any conduct outlined in this section of the SPG can be addressed through the procedures outlined here, although claims involving discrimination or harassment based on protected class status should follow OIE processes and be brought to the attention of the University's Institutional Equity Officer. This process is particularly aimed at providing tools to address unprofessional conduct that targets or intimidates others. 

Dissent does not, in and of itself, make someone subject to this process, but distinctions between unprofessional conduct and ideological/philosophical differences can be murky. This process can serve as a means to clarify boundaries and develop shared understandings precisely because it brings in other voices and resources and specific steps when someone perceives there is a climate of unprofessional conduct. 

The goal of this process is to foster and promote a professional work environment. Concerns over conduct in violation of the professional standards outlined in the SPG may be raised by those who feel they have been targeted by such behavior or by others who have directly witnessed/experienced behavior that they believe targets individuals and/or creates and unprofessional working environment. 

Relationship to Existing Powers and Policies:

The procedures outlined in this document do not limit or replace the existing powers of university administrators (particularly the college dean), the faculty grievance process, or complaints regarding protected status that would be filed with the OIE. Rather, the process outlined is meant to provide a restorative option, in addition to the punitive powers of the dean and the adversarial process of the grievance procedure. 

It is a violation of this policy for any person to engage in reprisal or retaliation against an individual because that individual has, in good faith, initiated a case under this policy, testified, assisted, or participated in any process under this policy or has attempted to do so. 

CASL Committee on Faculty Climate and Professional Conduct:

1. This standing committee is comprised of six members from the CASL faculty (one from each department) and resource people (from Human Resources and/or 51ÊÓƵ-Dearborn counseling.
2. Faculty members will be chosen by the dean, based on recommendations from the chairs, CASL-wide program directors, and the CASL executive committee. The dean may also choose to solicit volunteers from the college faculty directly.
3. Faculty members joining the board will make 3 year commitments to this service (initial terms were 1-3 years in order to stagger them. Once the rotations of terms is set, the typical term will be 3 years). The college will provide members with appropriate training on resolving interpersonal conflicts, mediation, and defusing hostile workplace environments.
4. The Chair of the committee or his/her designate will convene a subcommittee  of two members of the standing committee and and alternate from among the CFCPC members for each individual case. The subcommittee will choose its own chair and will request resource people, as needed. 

Initiation of the Process:

1. Any person who wishes to report an incident of nonprofessional conduct should contact the chair of the department, verbally or in writing. If the chair is the source of the behavior in question, the incident(s) should be reported to an associate dean of the college. The chair or associate dean will discuss options for next steps, including informal meetings, the process outlined here, or a formal grievance.
2. If possible, the administrator should attempt to resolve the situation informally through discussion with the involved parties.
3. If/When the individual reporting an incident(s) wishes to go beyond the informal role of the chair/associate dean to resolve the issue, they should fill out a "Professional Conduct Action Form."
4. Within five (5) business days, the Chair of the CFCPC or his/her designate will acknowledge receipt of the form and notify the individual who filled out the form of the next steps in the process. 

Subcommittee: 

1. Once a case has been referred to the CFCPC, the Chair or his/her designate will form the subcommittee. The subcommittee will contact the individual who filled out the form, typically within 10 business days of the Chair's acknowledgment of receipt of the form.
2. The subcommittee will meet and then gather information about and assess the situation(s). In so doing, they may speak with any and all affected parties.
3. The subcommittee will then make (a) recommendation(s) for further action. 

Resolution and Follow-up:

1. Once the subcommittee has completed its work per its recommendation(s), it will report to the full committee at the full committee's next regular meeting.
2. Typically, within one month after the regular meeting, the Chair or his/her designate will submit a report on the process to the dean.
3. Approximately three months later, and perhaps periodically thereafter, the committee will solicit voluntary feedback (Human Resources will manage this follow-up process) on the prevailing professional climate, but anyone should feel free to check in with the committee at any time.
4. The dean may choose to exercise his/her existing powers to write formal letters to be included in the personnel file of individual faculty or take other action. Any such formal letters should specify under what circumstances the dean's sanctions should be removed. Specific dates and criteria for the removal should be clearly stated. If any actions (such as, but not limited to, delaying merit pay increases or withholding summer teaching) are taken by the dean in relation to the case, the letter should also specify the details of these. Letters of this nature will be available to qualified faculty and administrators reviewing the individual for merit increases, tenure, and promotion. 

Formal Grievance Process:

Use of the process described here does not restrict any of the parties from accessing the formal grievance process. Should this process fail to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction, either party may move to initiate a formal grievance, as described in the college;s by-laws. The confidential records of this process shall not be used in the grievance hearing. Any  documentation produced by the dean, however, may be included. Considering the sensitive nature of these complaints, the complainant in a formal grievance may request that the issue begin with the college level grievance committee, instead of in the department.