Charges Committee, 2003-04 Annual
Report
To the Academic Senate,
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
eleven new cases during the 2003-04 academic year. Of
these, “probable cause:” was found in two cases, “no probable cause” in four
cases, three cases were found to be beyond the Committee’s purview and
rejected, and two unfinished cases were handed on to the 2004-05 Committee.
In
the “probable cause” category, one case concerned scientific misconduct
(fabrication and plagiarism in research publication); the Vice Chancellor
agreed with the Committee’s “probable cause” finding and forwarded the case to
the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. In the second case, the complainee had
been convicted in court of inappropriate sexual behavior with a minor; the Vice
Chancellor negotiated this complainee’s retirement from UCLA.
“No
probable cause” was found in three cases. In the first, the charge involved
intentional disruption of campus events and unauthorized use of resources, but
neither was substantiated. The complainee in the second case was charged with
trying to influence members of his field against a candidate for employment at
UCLA but the charge was not substantiated. In the third case, three complainees
were charged i.e. with preempting the evaluation of negative evidence in an
appointment procedure; these charges were found to be unsubstantiated. In all
three cases the Vice Chancellor agreed with the Committee’s finding of “no
probable cause”.
Two
of the three rejected cases concerned the loss of laboratory space and
consequent hindrance of research activities of emeritus faculty members. The
Committee rejected both cases, primarily because Department Chairs are clearly
authorized to assign departmental space as they see fit. The third case
involved alleged conspiratorial sexual harassment by a faculty member in
various European theatrical venues; the Committee found the connection with the
charged faculty member too tenuous to be effectively investigated by the
Committee.
In
addition to the cases listed above, the Committee discussed and commented on
proposed revisions to the document “Sexual Harassment and Procedures for
Responding to Reports of Sexual Harassment” and a proposed document “Policy on
Conflicts of Interest Created by Consensual Relationships”. The Committee also
reviewed certain internal documents, primarily those dealing with sexual
harassment and scientific misconduct cases, in an attempt to clarify the
Committee’s relations with administrative appointees and ad hoc committees
dealing with these sorts of charges. This review, by a subcommittee chaired by
Professor Nathaniel Grossman, is continuing in the 2004-05 year, during which
we hope to present our findings to the Legislative Assembly.
The
Chair takes this occasion to thank all Committee members for their thoughtful
labors and the good cheer maintained throughout our at times lively
discussions. It has also been a privilege to work closely with Donna Vredevoe,
Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel, whose devotion to the Academic Senate
and to shared governance has amply rewarded our Committee’s efforts. Finally,
our Committee’s work was greatly facilitated by the knowledge and efficiency of
Ms. Judy Nawa, whose patience and tactful judgment made work on this Committee
a pleasure. This was also Ms. Nawa’s last year of Senate service, and the
grateful Chair and members of the Committee on Charges wish her a long and
happy retirement, far from the professorial stream at her office door with
their constant “Judy, could you please …”
Respectfully submitted,
Carole
Browner, Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Science
Stephen
Feig, Pediatrics
Nathaniel
Grossman, Mathematics
Gwin
Jack Kolb, English
Leon
Letwin, Law
Wolfgang
Nehring, Germanic Languages
Joseph
Ostroy, Economics
Maria
Seraydarian, Nursing
Dean
Worth, Chair, Slavic Languages & Literatures