Charges Committee 2002-03 Annual Report

To The Academic Senate, Los Angeles Division:

The Charges Committee’s task is to review charges of alleged violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct brought against members of the Academic Senate or faculty in other series who have teaching responsibilities similar to that of members of the Academic Senate. The responsibility of the Committee is to make the initial review of the complaint and consider first, whether the behavior, if it actually occurred, would be in violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct. Once a charge has been accepted, the Committee holds an informal hearing to judge whether or not there is “probable cause” that the violation took place. The Committee prepares a report and communicates its findings to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Personnel. If the Committee finds “probable cause” it submits recommendations for proposed sanctions and the case is forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Personnel who may attempt to negotiate a settlement before submitting the case to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. If however, the Vice Chancellor disagrees with the Charges Committee’s findings, he/she will discuss any disagreements with the Committee before any final decision is made by the Vice Chancellor.

The Committee received eight new cases during the 02-03 academic year. Of these, “probable cause” was found in two cases; “no probable cause” in three cases; two cases were closed before coming before the Committee for consideration and one case was declined by the Committee.

In the first category: 1) a faculty member was charged with inappropriate ethical behavior and discrimination against University employees for reasons of sex. The Vice Chancellor agreed with the finding of “probable cause” and the case was filed with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure; 2) a faculty member was charged with sexual misconduct and violation of UCLA policy 630. Following a finding of “probable cause”, a recommendation was made that formal charges should be filed by the administrator for the complainant.

In the category of “no probable cause”: 1) a faculty member was charged with scientific misconduct, violation of University policy for protection of human subjects and violation of UCLA’s ARC policy. It was established that the accused had already been punished for his misconduct and the case was closed; 2) a faculty member was charged by a patient with sexual misconduct; and 3) a faculty member was charged with violation of ethical principles, sexual misconduct and violation of UCLA policy 630. In both cases, the Vice Chancellor concurred in the finding of “no probable cause”.

With regard to the two cases closed before coming before the Committee, in one case the complainant, after the initial statement, did not respond to numerous attempts at contact to pursue the action; in the second, charges were withdrawn by the complainant. In the final category, a faculty member purportedly refused to perform assigned teaching duties in the Spring, 2003 session. The Committee requested the Vice Chancellor to work out a solution with the parties involved and the case was closed.

The Charges Committee also commented on the following items:

1. The Committee discussed and commented on the proposed revisions to APM 015, Part II, Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct. (Committee concluded that the addition of unacceptable conduct #6 and 7 raises serious questions of interpretation, enforceability and remedy. #1 through 5 cover identifiable harm that might flow from inappropriate relationships, #6 and 7 are prophylactic and the Committee is not convinced that they are necessary additions if the general principle endorsed by the Committee is adopted.)

2. The Committee discussed and commented on the proposed revisions to Academic Personnel Policy (APM) 010 – Academic Freedom. (Committee agreed with proposal, however, the footnote #1 epitomizes the difference in the academic point of view of what characterizes sound research today in contrast to ideas current 60-70 years ago and should be incorporated into the body of the statement.)

3. The Committee discussed and commented on the proposed Changes to the UCLA Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures. (Charges proposed further amendments, particularly in the area of definitions of “sexual harassment”, academic freedom and freedom of speech”, and “consensual relationships”.)

4. The Committee discussed and commented on the proposed changes to APM 015, Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II – Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct – Section A. Teaching and Students. (Reviewed the proposal in its first draft. Charges had no further comments than our views previously).

5. The Committee members repeatedly expressed concern at the process whereby cases involving sexual harassment were initially evaluated by a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) whose opinion as to “probable cause” was sent to the Committee. Committee members agreed that this mechanism was more time-efficient than if the fact-finding process were to be pursued by the Committee itself. On the other hand, the Committee also felt that this process placed the potential fate of a faculty member in the hands of a non-Academic Senate Member. Concurrence by the Committee was seen by some members as a ‘rubber stamp’. Non-concurrence could lead to reinvestigation by the Committee itself with time-consuming repetition of interviews, etc. Interim presentation by the CRO (which was tried once) was also seen as unsatisfactory and in some cases, leading to possible infringement on the rights of complainant and accused. (It was finally agreed that the mechanism would be tried for 12 to 18 months and then reevaluated. In the meantime, the Committee Chair would be appraised by the Vice Chancellor and the CRO of any sexual harassment cases that were under initial investigation).

The Chair wishes to acknowledge the exceptional sense of commitment and thoughtful deliberations of the Committee on Charges. It is also a privilege to note the compassionate concern and balanced judgment of Vice Chancellor Vredevoe in the final consideration and disposition of these cases. Finally, the Chair expresses sincere thanks to Ms. Judy Nawa without whose tact, knowledge, good judgment and patience, this Committee could not have operated.

Respectfully submitted,

Carole Browner, Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Science

Nathaniel Grossman, Mathematics

Christine Littleton, Law

Gwin Jack Kolb, English

Joseph M. Ostroy, Economics

Maria Seraydarian, Nursing

Dean Worth, Slavic Languages & Literature

ARNOLD SCHEIBEL, CHAIR, Neurobiology

September 15, 2003