September 2021 Minutes

Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Virtual Meeting in Zoom

September 16, 2021

Present: Senators Almotairi, Logan, Valenzuela, Pfannenstiel, Petty, Oden, Coppersmith, S. Schroeder, Schneiderwind, T. Schroeder, Tucker, White, Fanning, Paulson, Wilson, Overholser, Hudgens, Nelson

Ex-officio and guests: Trey Berry, David Lanoue, Donna Allen, Jennifer Rowsam, Sheryl Edwards, Robin Sronce, Kim Bloss, Helmut Langerbein, Abdel Bachri, Marissa Grippo, Kayla Rasberry, Gerald Plumlee, Karen Landry, Greg Taylor, Jeremy Chamberlain

Call to order: 3:40 pm

Approval of Minutes

Minutes from August 19, 2021 were approved with corrections to the spelling of two Senators names (motion – Fanning, second – Logan).

Special Orders of the Day

Comments from SAU President, Dr. Trey Berry

• COVID update. We had a spike in cases at the start of the semester but now looking better. County numbers are dropping. Random testing of student athletes will continue. We have had one flu case so far on campus. Senator Tucker inquired as whether or not there is any kind of broad vaccination campaign happening to encourage vaccinations. Dr. Berry indicates that the Task Force will be sending out information. Sheryl Edwards added that the Communication Center is working on clinic notices. Senator T. Schroeder requested that faculty be added to communications to students in order to be informed about what the students know and are being asked to do. President S. Schroeder advised that an open student forum involving Drs. Tucker and Daniel McDermott would be beneficial.
• Enrollment numbers are in for public colleges and universities for Fall 2021. SAU held steady in enrollment vs. last year and therefore fared much better than some of the other colleges and universities in the state.
• New computers are on order. 509 or more have been ordered for delivery late in October. Senator Tucker inquired whether the new computer initiative will be accompanied by a similar move to upgrade the network including WiFi access across campus. Dr. Berry indicates that it will and that it has already begun in some of the most needed buildings.
• SAU has developed and revitalized many programs and Dr. Berry wants that to continue. He will be setting up a sort of “what’s next” committee to do some brainstorming.

Comments from Provost Lanoue

• First year retention is down compared to the all time high over 70% last year.
• There is discussion about allowing NC grades to continue for Fall 2021 in order to give struggling students a better chance to succeed and maintain scholarships. Provost Lanoue will let faculty know a decision on this very soon.
• Also under consideration is whether or not SAU should remain “test optional” for admissions. Dr. Lanoue indicates that high school GPA is a better predictor of student success than is a standardized test score. Senator White inquired about scholarships that are linked to ACT scores. Dr. Lanoue indicated that VPC is looking into those issues. Senator Overholser indicated that she likes the current test optional policy and prefers to eliminate the testing requirement.
• There have been a few COVID Quarantine/Isolation issues. Some students are choosing to self-quarantine. SAU has no current official status for self-quarantine, therefore these absences are not considered to be excused absences according to university policy. There are also multiple reports of quarantined/isolated students considering it to be “time off” from school and are not in communication with their instructors during their time away from face to face class. Dr. Lanoue will be sending an email to all students indicating that this is not to be the case and that all students are required to know the material that they might have missed in their classes.
• Question for the Administration: Were all deans offered the opportunity for Associate Deans for their Colleges? Two of the four do not have such a position.

Dr. Lanoue indicates that the quick answer is no. The long answer is that they were based on individual college circumstances. The Rankin College of Business Associate Dean was the result of an internal reorganization into a single department with an Associate Dean acting in the role of Department Chair. The College of Science and Engineering Assistant Dean was created during the negotiating process during the hire of the present college dean due to the large diversity in the college in terms of majors, programs, and departments. The Graduate School Associate Dean position came about because Dr. Bloss currently holds the position of Dean of the College of Education and Human Performance as well as Dean of Graduate Studies. Senator T. Schroeder inquired as to whether the positions in Graduate Studies and in Science were purely administrative appointments or whether they were faculty-driven. Dr. Lanoue indicated that the position in Graduate Studies was an administrative appointment but that he could not recall as clearly about the position in Science.

Recommendations from the Quality Executive Council (QEC) and Dr. Jennifer Rowsam

• The QEC wishes to modify policies currently in place regarding grade reporting and interventions. They desire four-week grades in all courses numbered 2999 and lower and for midterm grades in all courses. Senator T. Schroeder inquired about lab courses in which there can often be very few points assigned by the four-week mark of a course. Dr. Rowsam recommended assigning grades on what points had been allotted. Senator Tucker inquired as to whether Early Alert was still going to be in play. Dr. Rowsam indicates that it will and that there is not 100% participation in that program from faculty. Senator T. Schroeder inquired as to whether the four-week grades could be “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” instead of the traditional letter grades. Dr. Rowsam indicated that she would check with ITS and look into that option. President Schroeder inquired about workshop courses in which not all students receive their grades at the same time depending on when they present their materials – could classes such as these opt-out with justifications? Dr. Rowsam indicated that she was not too sure how such situations were handled in the past then midterm grades were mandatory, but that she would look into that option. Senator Schneiderwind asked about capstone courses where grades are essentially based on the final paper submitted at the end of the semester. Dr. Rowsam said she could look into this situation as well. President Schroeder executively refers this policy matter to the Faculty Senate Handbook Committee.
• The QEC also wishes to establish a policy for minimum presence in Blackboard for all courses including faculty contact information, a communications policy, the course syllabus, and use of the Grade Center with calculated grades not expected, but exam, assignment, quiz, etc. scores being present. Senator Nelson requested an email copy of the policy for examination. Dr. Rowsam indicated that she would distribute it electronically.

Reports of Committees

No reports from the standing committees of the Senate

Ad hoc Committee on the Faculty Sanctions Policy (proposal attached)

Senator Logan indicates that the policy was developed initially last year with revisions over the summer in committee with the help of Provost Lanoue and VPA Roger Giles. The report from the committee was presented by Senator Logan as a motion to refer the policy to the Faculty Senate Handbook Committee for approval (White second). Motion carried unanimously.

New Business

• Proposal to replace the Animal Subjects Committee with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IAUCC), proposed by Senator Logan, VPA Giles, and with the support of Dr. Jeremy Chamberlain of the Department of Biology. (Proposal attached)
• Logan indicates that the legal requirements in this area are being met. Senator Overholser indicates that the proposed committee seems to be more in line with what other colleges and universities do. Senator Overholser motions to send this committee change to the Handbook Committee for consideration (second White).
• A question from the administration centers around how the University Farm will be affected and what about the use of animals in teaching situations on the farm? Dr. Chamberlain indicates that the protocol is to address how the animal is used for teaching and research purposes and that there should be appropriate animal care conditions as a baseline. The line between biomedical applications versus agricultural applications is somewhat “gray.”
• President Schroeder indicates that she will request that the Handbook Committee to include input from all relevant departments in their discussion of the policy.
• Motion passes unanimously.

Adjourn

Motion to Adjourn (Motion – White, second – Hudgens) at 5:03 pm. Motion carries unanimously.

Next meeting of the Faculty Senate is scheduled for Thursday, October 21^st at 3:40 pm.

 

IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF POLICY AND DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE

Imposing sanctions for violations of University policy and/or termination of a tenured or non-tenured appointment before the end of the period specified in the faculty member’s current contract may be effected only for adequate cause.

Grounds

Adequate cause for dismissal must directly and substantially relate to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacity as academics. Dismissal shall not be used to restrain faculty members in the lawful exercise of any individual legal rights.  Adequate causes for termination of a contract before the end of its specified term are defined as follows:

1. Substantial neglect of duties;
2. Documented gross unfitness to associate with students, faculty, or staff;
3. Demonstrable incompetence;
4. Moral turpitude;
5. Misuse of funds,
6. Violation of criminal law that places the institution or members of the university community in jeopardy;
7. Persistent and willful violation of standards of faculty conduct; these standards are located in the subsection on Standards of faculty conduct included in the section entitled Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure;
8. Medical issues of such a nature as to render the faculty member unable to fulfill their professional responsibilities; or
9. Bona fide financial exigency on the part of the University or discontinuance of a program, department, or College.

<different section>

Faculty Sanctions for Cause

Effective performance and development of each faculty member is a mutual concern and responsibility of the faculty and of the University. At times, the imposition of a sanction may be necessary as a corrective measure. A sanction is a documented action in response to improper performance of duties, responsibilities, or conduct by a faculty member.

The University has, and retains, the right to apply sanctions to faculty members, ranging from lesser sanctions such as reprimand up to and including major actions, such as termination of employment. Sanctions will be applied for just cause, based on stated grounds, and will be determined on the basis of the appropriateness of the penalty imposed for each individual situation.

Timeliness, fundamental fairness, and appropriate procedural processes and safeguards are held in high regard. Each case will result in a thorough review by the appropriate supervisors of the issues relating to a) the conduct of the accused and b) an appropriate sanction(s).

Types of Sanctions

The severity and type of sanction selected for a particular offense must be appropriately related to the nature and circumstance of the case. For some sanction types, the sanction is a definitive terminal penalty, whereas other types may incur a penalty to be carried out for a limited or specified duration of time.  The types of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed on a faculty member, with or without tenure, are described below in order of increasing severity.

• Minor Sanctions: Imposed penalties for lesser offenses against duty, responsibility, or conduct unbecoming a University professional at this institution. Examples of such actions include, but are not limited to, inadvertent academic misconduct, breach of commitment to the community, or minor neglect of duties, etc.
• Verbal Reprimand: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may receive an informal reprimand or oral warning for cause. The oral reprimand is the initial step in a progressive disciplinary process that warns the member of disapproval of actions. The reprimand brings the inappropriate action to the attention of the member, emphasizes the seriousness of continued actions, and presents instructions on how to resolve or correct the problem. The supervisor giving the verbal reprimand may write a brief summary of the conversation, allowing for comments from the faculty member to be attached. Confidential documentation is held between the two parties, but no formal documentation will be placed in personnel records.
• Written Censure: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may receive a formal written notification of strong disapproval of actions. The written censure documents the occurrence and warns that further violations may result in additional sanctions. The written censure will be delivered confidentially to the member and a copy maintained in personnel records for a period of time specified in the notice.
• Apology: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may be required to issue a private apology to a colleague or student, or a public apology to the University community, depending on the nature of the incident, with written documentation of the violation provided to the faculty member. The apology documents the member’s good faith approach to acknowledge inappropriate actions while agreeing not to repeat such actions in the future. Apologies may be combined with other sanctions. A copy of the apology will be maintained in personnel records for a period of time specified in the notice.
• Probation: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may be placed on probation for a specified period of time. The letter authorizing probation will inform the faculty member of any corrective measures that need to be taken during the probationary period and specify that further violations of policy or additional offenses may result in major sanctions.
• Major Sanctions: Imposed penalties for more serious offenses against duty, responsibility, or conduct unbecoming a professional at this institution. Examples of such actions include, but are not limited to, repetitive or substantial neglect of duties, documented incompetence, intentional misuse of funds, academic misconduct, conflict of interest, gross unfitness to associate with students or faculty, etc.

Due to the nature of specific behaviors deemed applicable to major sanctions, a “relief of duties” may be assigned for a period of time along with a major sanction. This relief of duties not only refers to teaching assignments or roles consistent with one’s job description but also could include limited or prohibited access to university resources for the duration of the sanction period.

• Written Censure A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may receive a formal written notification of strong disapproval of actions. The written censure documents the occurrence and warns that further violations may result in additional sanctions. The written censure will be delivered confidentially to the member and a copy maintained in personnel records.
• Suspension: A faculty member with or without tenure may be suspended from any or all appointments with pay, with or without relief of duties, for cause. The duration of the suspension, in alignment with the nature of the action, is to be no less than two weeks and no more than twelve months.
• Demotion: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may be demoted in title while maintaining current salary, demoted in title with a corresponding salary reduction, or incur an appropriate salary reduction aligned to new or revised assigned duties or reappointment of duties for cause, as determined by the administration.
• Prohibited Research: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may be prohibited from submitting grant or research proposals through the university or from acting as a representative of the university for a specified period of time. A relief of duties may apply for a period of time as determined by the administration.
• Involuntary Leave: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may be relieved of duties with or without pay for a cause of an accused major action while still retaining temporary employment status. This sanction is justified for major actions that warrant the temporary disassociation between the member and institution. The involuntary leave sanction is limited in duration for a period of time as determined by the administration pending the outcome of the related investigation connected to the major action. After such time of the investigated outcome, the member may be assigned Immediate Dismissal from Employ, one of the Major Sanctions, or be released from Involuntary Leave without further penalty.
• Immediate Dismissal from Employ of the University: A person holding a faculty appointment with or without tenure may be dismissed from employment and relieved of duties, without pay, on the grounds of major sanctions. This sanction is justified for actions with such gravity of gross conduct or unlawful conditions that render the member unfit for continuing association with students, faculty, or this institution. Member may constitute an immediate and substantial danger to members of the university or the property of the university. A member accused of major sanctions with potential for “Immediate Dismissal from Employ” may serve the “Involuntary Leave” sanction prior to dismissal if/until an investigation is conducted. If the investigation confirms the severe misconduct or finds the Member liable, then immediate dismissal is appropriate and the dismissed member shall not be entitled to receive any salary after the dismissal effective date. If the behavior is substantiated and an investigation is not required or relevant to alter the outcome of one’s standing at the university, then immediate dismissal is appropriate.

Principles and Definitions

This section describes the general principles and definitions of terms applying in instances in which the University investigates alleged violations of University policy by a faculty member, after which (should clear and convincing evidence support the allegation) the administration imposes sanctions. In certain cases, violation of University policy may also entail violation of the policies of external organizations; consequently, cases alleging discrimination/discriminatory harassment or misconduct in scholarly activity or research require special procedures to ensure compliance with external agencies and regulations. Nevertheless, the following general procedures and principles apply for all allegations against a faculty member for violation of a University policy.

(1) Purview    The procedures spelled out in this section of this Faculty Handbook shall be the sole method for investigating and/or resolving any complaint against a faculty member, unless otherwise mandated by law or policy of the United States or the State of Arkansas.  Standards regarding faculty conduct and responsibilities are provided in the section titled Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure.

(2) Initiation of Allegations    Allegation means any written or oral complaint of violation of University policy made to an appropriate administrative officer. A good faith allegation is one made with the honest belief that a violation may have occurred.  According to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, an allegation is not made in good faith “if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation (1995)”.   The Administrative Officers empowered to receive allegations and to initiate inquiries are a) the program director, chair, and/or dean to whom the faculty member reports and b) the Provost.  Allegations of discrimination or discriminatory harassment may also be made to the Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) Officer, or in the case of sex/gender discrimination, to the Title IX Coordinator.

(3) Deciding Officials    The Deciding Official is the administrative officer who makes the final determination that a policy has been violated and decides the appropriate institutional action.  In cases in which the complaint is resolved during the stage of informal investigation and mediation, the deciding official may be the academic dean, the EEO/AA officer (in cases alleging discrimination or discriminatory harassment), or the Provost.  In cases in which the complaint is resolved during an inquiry, the deciding official maybe the program director, chair, or academic dean, the EEO/AA officer (in cases alleging discrimination or discriminatory harassment), or the Provost.  In cases that proceed to the stage of formal investigation and resolution, the deciding official(s) shall be the President, and/or the Board of Trustees.

(4) Inquiry, Investigation, and Mediation    Inquiry describes the stage in which the administrative officer suspects or receives an allegation of violation of policy, determines the validity of the allegation, and seeks to resolve the problem.  An informal investigation and/or mediation occurs when preliminary attempts to resolve the matter fail or when the allegation makes private resolution impossible (for example, because of the gravity of the situation or because a granting agency requires at least informal investigation). Informal investigations gather and dispense information, attempt to mediate the complaint, and/or determine whether a formal investigation is warranted.   Formal investigation and resolution describes the adjudicating committee’s examination and evaluation of the evidence supporting the charge and the determining officer’s decision based on the committee’s findings.

(5) Standards of Proof    Before any sanction is imposed, the determining officer must conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in support of the allegation.  “Clear and convincing evidence” does not require evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt; it is defined as that degree of proof that will produce a firm belief in the allegations sought to be established. Clear and convincing evidence thus is an intermediate standard requiring more than a preponderance of evidence, but less than the certainty required by evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

(6)  Sanctions   There are two types of sanctions:  Minor and Major.

(7) Safeguards Against Retaliation    Retaliation refers to any action taken by the University, a faculty or staff member, or group of faculty or staff members, against an individual or individuals because the latter have, in good faith, made or provided evidence in support of an allegation.  Acts of retaliation violate the 1999 Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act and are subject to investigation and disciplinary action if the allegation of retaliation is substantiated.

(8)  Confidentiality    In all proceedings, confidentiality will be maintained to the greatest extent possible.  The administration will guard any involved member’s anonymity as much as is in their control throughout the pending investigation.  Notes, reports, files, or other written documents may be kept about the inquiry or investigation but shall not be placed in an employee’s personnel file. Because the mere suspicion of wrongdoing, even if totally unjustified, is potentially damaging to an individual’s career, information concerning any investigation should be available only to those with a right or a need to know. An unwarranted reference to an exonerated case may in itself constitute misconduct.

In accordance with 1999 Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, the university will take steps to protect the complainant as necessary as an investigation ensues.  Faculty can be investigated via the process described in this section as well as through the Title IX process depending on the alleged improper behavior(s).  Should external regulation or safety concerns require the administrative officer to pursue an inquiry and/or investigation, the complainant’s identity will be kept confidential to the extent possible, but the faculty member shall be apprised of the allegation and have access to any written documents produced by University officials or committees.

(9)  Faculty Notification and Access to Files    As mentioned in #8 above, nothing concerning allegations against a faculty member shall be kept in a faculty member’s personnel file by any committee, officer, or office of the University except as required by state or federal policy. This process should be followed unless the faculty member is notified of the existence of, and provided access to, the written material (notes, reports, images, files, etc.). The faculty member shall also be afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegation and to have that response added to the written record. (This standard does not apply to conversations or discussions that do not result in further inquiry or investigation and/or enduring notes, reports, files, or other written documents).

(10) Remedies and Sanctions    Remedies and sanctions are described in the Minor Sanctions and Major Sanctions sections of this document.

(11)  Appeals of Sanctions    Should a faculty member, at the end of a formal investigation, receive a sanction, he or she may appeal the sanction by requesting a review from the Mediation Committee on the grounds of procedural irregularities or new evidence for consideration which was not available at the time sanction was recommended.  This is the first step in the appeals process.  Procedures for appeals are in section (##.##).

(12)  Publicity  Dismissal for cause of a faculty member is an extreme measure, undertaken only for the protection of the University and of the members of the University community. The proceedings leading to this measure are not intended either to subject the dismissed faculty member to public censure or to compromise unduly the possibility of their employment elsewhere. For this reason, hearings are private unless the faculty member decides that they should be open to the University community.  No public announcement of the initiation of the procedure aiming at dismissal for cause, of any later stages of the procedure, or of the final disposition of the case will be made, unless the faculty member requests—in writing addressed to the President—that a public announcement be made. Upon such a request, the President or the President’s representative shall make an appropriate announcement. The announcement of a dismissal for cause shall include summary statements of the charges and of the decisions of the Faculty Appeals Committee, the President, and the Board of Trustees. Confidentiality will be maintained consistent with Arkansas law.

The same provisions shall apply, with the necessary adjustments, to procedures aimed at the imposition of sanctions other than dismissal for cause. Except when the nature of the sanction itself requires disclosure (e.g., censure, public apology), the fact that the sanction was imposed and a summary of the established charges shall be disclosed only to the extent strictly necessary.

To the extent possible, public statements and publicity about the case will be avoided by the faculty member, the committee, and administrative offices until the proceedings have been completed, including consideration by the Board of Trustees. If a public statement about a case is made by the faculty member concerned or by any other person while the proceedings are still in progress or after they are concluded, the President shall have the right to a public reply.

<different section>

Process for Faculty Hearings Regarding Imposition of Sanctions

Procedures for Imposition of Sanction other than Dismissal

Addressing Allegations – When the appropriate deciding officer receives an allegation that a faculty member has violated University policy, or when that officer finds evidence that a faculty member under their supervision has violated University policy, that administrator shall first discuss the allegation and/or offending conduct with the faculty member.  If the officer determines that there is reason to proceed, the officer shall define the violation and explain relevant policy and procedures in writing, when required by the sanction.  This action includes any sanctions (minor or major) that may be imposed on the faculty member.  The deciding officer shall provide the faculty member an opportunity to respond and shall seek a solution that is mutually satisfactory to all parties involved (e.g., an agreement to stop the offending conduct, amelioration, and/or remediation).

Faculty Sanctions – If the administration believes that the conduct of a faculty member, although not constituting adequate cause for dismissal, is sufficiently serious to justify imposition of a sanction, the process presented in this section should be followed.  This process applies to sanctions defined as minor or major.

1. Faculty Notification – The administration shall provide written notification to the faculty member regarding the basis for the sanction, including all charges.  Upon receiving this notification, the faculty member has ten (10) working days to address the alleged charge(s) and convince the administration that the proposed sanction should not be imposed.
2. Review by Mediation Committee – If the two parties are unable to reach a mutual agreement regarding the proposed sanction, the faculty member may request a review by the Mediation Committee. Mediation Committees will be appointed by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and will be comprised of three members of the Faculty Senate. The Mediation Committee will determine whether the two sides are able to resolve the dispute through consultation with both parties.
3. Faculty Appeals Subcommittee – If the Mediation Committee determines the matter cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, the faculty member can initiate an appeal by written request to the chair of the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee. This appeal by the faculty member must be initiated within ten (10) working days following the conclusion of the review by the Mediation Committee. Upon receipt of this appeal, the chair of the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee will notify the President.

Within five (5) working days of this notification, the president or a delegate of the president will provide a written statement declaring the administration’s position to the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee.  This statement will offer clear and convincing evidence substantiating the administration’s position, including all pertinent facts of the case.  When sanctions are imposed for just cause, the president or a delegate will provide a list of charges.  The statement of charges will be transmitted to the faculty member and to the chair of the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee for a hearing.

4. Faculty Appeals Subcommittee Hearing – The Faculty Appeals Subcommittee will conduct a formal hearing within ten (10) working days from the receipt of the President’s statement. Notice of the hearing with specific charges in writing will be dispatched to the faculty member and all other concerned parties at least five (5) working days prior to the scheduled hearing.

The Faculty Appeals Subcommittee, in consultation with the President and the faculty member, should exercise its judgement as to whether the hearing should be public or private. The parties of both sides will submit in writing the name of an academic advisor and/or counsel, if desired, and the name of any witnesses, to the chairperson of the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee as least one (1) week prior to the hearing. At the request of either party or the hearing committee, a representative of a responsible educational association shall be permitted to attend the proceedings as an observer. The committee will invite the University President or a representative. Each of the following may invite one observer: the faculty member, the President, and the committee. Questioning of witnesses will be limited to members of the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee, the faculty member involved, and the President or the President’s representative. The faculty member and the administration shall have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. Questioning shall be relayed through the chair to the person to whom the question is directed.

The Faculty Appeals Subcommittee will proceed by considering the justification for the faculty member’s sanction(s), as well as the faculty member’s response written prior to the hearing. A verbatim record of the hearing will be taken, and a printed copy will be made available to the faculty member without cost at the faculty member’s request. The “burden of proof” that adequate cause exists for the imposition of a major sanction rests with the institution and shall be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence.

Following the hearing, the Committee will meet in closed session and draft a report stating a recommendation regarding each of the charges presented during the hearing. A copy of these recommendations will be submitted to the President and the faculty member.

5. If the Faculty Appeals Committee concludes that adequate cause for sanction has not been established by the evidence in the record, it will so report to the President. If the committee concludes that adequate cause for a major sanction has been established but that a lesser sanction would be appropriate, the Committee will so recommend in their report without supporting reasons.  If the President rejects the report, the President will present the reasons for the rejection in writing to the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee and to the faculty member, providing an opportunity for responses, before transmitting the case to the Board of Trustees.

1. Board of Trustees – If a sanction is recommended, the faculty member may request that the President transmit to the Board of Trustees the record of the case. The Board of Trustees’ review will be based on the Faculty Appeals Committee hearing record, and the Board will provide opportunity for argument, oral or written or both, by the principals at the hearings or by their representatives.

If they do not uphold the decision of the Faculty Appeals Committee, the Board of Trustees will return the proceedings to the Committee, the President, or the President’s appointed representative with specific objections. The Committee will then reconsider the matter by taking into account any stated objections or new evidence.  The Board of Trustees will make a final decision only after study of the hearing committee’s reconsideration.  The Board of Trustees will so report to the president who will then inform the faculty member and the Faculty Appeals Subcommittee of those findings.

 

SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY – MAGNOLIA

ACADEMIC COMMITTEE

2021-2022
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

I. Mission

The mission of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is to ensure the humane care and use of animals in research, teaching, and testing, and to ensure compliance with guidelines and regulations.  The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) must approve any activities that involve the use of live vertebrate animals. Specific examples of such activities and/or uses are:  research, including field studies and clinical trials; use of blood donor animals; or other animal research covered by the federal or state regulations.

Research does not include the normal day-to-day management such as routine care of farm animals or poultry.

Faculty are expected to obtain IACUC approval for these activities regardless of where the animals are maintained and/or the project is carried out. However, if a project is to be done at a site or in cooperation with an institution that has its own Animal Care and Use Committee, a copy of that committee’s approved form may be submitted to the IACUC.  Committee members agree to meet training requirements established by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Public Health Service (PHS).

1. Membership (based on federal requirements all members are appointed by the President)

Chair, appointed by the president, may or may not already be a member of the committee

Faculty, four (4)

three (3) from College of Science and Engineering (one must be practicing scientist) Departments of Biology and Agriculture must be represented

one (1) from a non-scientific area

Veterinarian

Person not affiliated with SAU

Ex officio (non-voting)

Students, two (2),
Faculty Senator (if one is not elected to the committee)

Staff Senator

III Resource and Support positions

CEO is the president of Southern Arkansas University

Institutional Officer (IO) is responsible for ensuring that an institution complies with all applicable animal welfare laws, regulations, and policies.  The IO signs forms etc. on behalf of the institution.  This includes assurances and other required reporting and recording keeping documents.

University Counsel

            Communications Center Representative

            IRB representative

            Financial Services Grant Officer

           Farm Staff Representative