Minutes of the University Senate Meeting May 14, 1997
Present: Acres, Anderson, Anderson-Inman, Belitz, Bennett, Blandy, Chadwell, M. Davis, DeGidio, Ellis, Engelking, Gerdes, Gilkey, Halpern, Hurwit, Isenberg Kimball, Kintz, Krishnamurthy, Leavitt, Luks, Maxwell, McGee, OíKeefe, Owen, Page, Paris, Pope, Ravits, Rogers, Ryan, Soper, Stavitsky, Tedards, Unger, J. Young, P. Young
Excused: Altmann, Hawkins, Lees, Morse, Ostler,Wolfe
Absent: Berk, H. Davis, Farwell, Westling
CALL TO ORDER
President Carl Bybee called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. in 110 Fenton , noting that this was the last regular meeting of the senate for the year except for the May 28th organizational meeting at which time the next yearís senate president, Ann Tedards, music, will be confirmed and a new vice president elected. All senators -- departing, continuing, and newly elected -- are invited to the meeting. President Bybee also brought the senateís attention to a memo from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) regarding the budgeting process currently going on in the legislature. The IFS indicated that the legislature is looking at "put backs" into the higher education budget, and that now would be a good time to contact legislative representatives to make your feelings known. Additionally, the senate Budget Committee has provided a handout with some information concerning what degree of budget cutting departments have been asked to prepare for the upcoming budget year. There are also some comparisons between last year and this year as well as some effects of the productivity model. Senators were asked to review and share the information with their constituencies.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The minutes from the April 9, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed.
Four motions from the Committee on Committees were presented by its chair, Senator Gene Luks, computer science. By way of explanation, Senator Luks reminded the senators these four motions have all come before the senate last October as part of the recommendation from the previous Committee on Committees chaired by Judith Eisen. Text of the four motions with a brief explanation of each follows:
MOTION US 97-7 All full-time officers of instruction may stand for election to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. Explanation: Current restriction to tenure-track faculty is inappropriately narrow.
MOTION US 97-8 The Committee on Research shall be renamed the Committee on Summer Research Awards. Explanation: This reflects the total function of the committee.
MOTION US 97-9 The Academic Standards Committee and the Committee on Academic Advising shall be subcommittees of the Undergraduate Education and Policy Coordinating Council. Explanation: These committees already act through the UEPCC. The Academic Standards Committee has received some of its charges in the last several years from the Undergraduate Education Policy and Coordinating Council. The Committee on Academic Advising makes recommendations about advising through the UEPCC.
MOTION US 97-11 The Library Committee shall serve as a faculty oversight committee reporting directly to the Senate. Explanation: The Library Committee was created by faculty legislation in 1921 "to act as an advisory committee on library affairs." Its jurisdiction is currently stated as follows: "The Library Committee represents the interest of the faculty and advises the head librarian on issues of considerable importance. It serves also as a consulting body on library concerns that affect the university community." This leaves the question to whom the Library Committee is responsible rather vague. The intent of the motion is to make it clear that the Library Committee, which is appointed by the Senate, also reports to the Senate.
All four motions passed unanimously. There was no discussion other than a clarification for Senator Ben Unger, ASUO, that the Library Committee, along with all other senate committees, makes a written report to the senate at the end of the academic year.
The next item of unfinished business was Motion US 97-10, an amendment to the Student Conduct Code, Oregon Administrative Rule 571-21-030 concerning sexual misconduct, rape, and sexual assault. Full text of the motion follows.
MOTION US 97-10 Sexual Misconduct. Amendment to the Student Conduct Code, OAR 571-21-030, replacing the current offense 20 with the following:
(20) SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Sexual misconduct, an offense the University of Oregon recognizes as an act of violence, is committed when a student initiates a sexual act as described in (a) when the act:
1) materially interferes with another person's academic performance or participation in University-sponsored or supervised activities, or performance of University employment; or
2) is committed on University-owned or controlled property , or at University sponsored or supervised activities ; or
3) demonstrates reasonable threat to the health or safety of the campus community or the alleged student survivor. Sexual gratification or pleasure of any party involved is not relevant to an offense in this subsection.
(a) SEXUAL MISCONDUCT OFFENSES
(i) Rape. Rape is an offense committed by a student who engages in penetration of another person, or who causes the penetration of another person, and who (a) does not first obtain explicit consent from that person or (b) knows or should have known the person was incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness.
(ii) Sexual Assault. Sexual Assault is an offense committed when a student subjects another person to sexual contact without having first obtained explicit consent or when he or she knows or should have known the person was incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness; and when a reasonable person would know that such contact would cause emotional distress.
(i) "Explicit Consent" means voluntary, non-coerced and clear communication indicating a willingness to engage in a particular act. "Explicit consent" includes an affirmative verbal response or voluntary acts unmistakable in their meaning.
(ii) "Penetration" means any degree of insertion, however slight, of the penis or any material object into the vagina or anus.
(iii) "Sexual Contact" means the touching of the genitalia, anus, buttocks or breasts of a person or causing such person to touch the genitalia, anus, buttocks or breasts of another.
(iv) "Mental disorder" means that a person suffers from a mental disease or disorder that renders the person incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct of the person.
(v) "Mental incapacitation" means that a person is rendered incapable of appraising or controlling the conduct of the person at the time of the alleged offense because of the influence of a controlled or other intoxicating substance or because of any act committed upon the person without the consent of the person.
(vi) "Physical helplessness" means that a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.
This motion was put forth by the Student Conduct Code Committee co-chaired by faculty member Ms. Lisa Freinkel, English, and university student Ms. Mandy Hood. Before beginning discussion of the motion, Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, moved that Ms. Hood be granted access to the senate floor to speak to the main motion (passed unanimously). Ms. Freinkel began her explanation of the motion referring to the considerable amount of background information each senator had received during the preceding weeks. The intent of the motion is to clarify the current rather vague language of this section of the Student Conduct Code, thus making it clear what expectations are for student behavior, and also giving students confidence that the procedures in the Student Conduct Code are viable ways for dealing with sexual misconduct problems that may occur.
The motion revises the code in three areas: (1) changing the language of jurisdiction to include off-campus locations, (2) defining what constitutes an offense, specifically rape and sexual assault; and (3) including the notion of explicit consent in participating in a sexual act. Student Conduct Coordinator Elaine Green, student academic affairs, provided a brief synopsis of the two-year history of this process to arrive at the current motion, noting that the text of the proposed motion is the twenty-second version of the motion. The motion was heard publicly last November. A considerable amount of time and energy from both faculty and students was devoted to developing the text which Ms. Green indicated would give her a much better tools to work with cases of sexual assault in the campus community. Ms. Green commented on several recent cases which point to the inadequacy of the current sexual misconduct code, citing the limitation of code vagueness when dealing with! very real problems confronting students. Ms. Green also noted that although a student who is raped has recourse through the courts and legal system, that system is less adequate in dealing with acquaintance rape, which is one of the most frequent forms of rape among students.
Ms. Hood spoke first to the issue of jurisdiction, saying that the current proposal limits jurisdiction of this code to the campus and only stretches beyond the campus if the university can prove that the academic life or health and well being of the student was impacted by the off campus rape or sexual assault incident. Secondly, she indicted several changes in language defining rape and sexual assault that resulted from the November hearings. Finally, the notion of consent was changed to include the idea of mutual initiation of voluntary acts that were unmistakable in their meaning. Ms. Hood reminded senators that the proposed motion to amend the code was student initiated and is widely endorsed by numerous diverse student organizations across campus.
Discussion of the motion ensued with Senator Kalpana Krishnamurthy, ASUO, stating that there are extensive plans for educating students about the sexual misconduct section of the Student Conduct Code, and that it will not be implemented in a vacuum without information available. Senator Lynn Anderson-Inman, education, although endorsing the motion, suggested two areas of text that might be reworded for greater clarity: that is, what exactly explicit consent "includes" and, what is "unmistakable". After a brief discussion about the intricacies of exact wording, Senators Unger and Paul Engelking, chemistry, defended the current document wording as sufficient to convey the intended meaning. In further discussion of the main motion, the point was raised that the ACLU came out opposed to the proposed code amendments on grounds that the code exceeds Oregon rape statutes. The question was then called (30-1). The vote on the main motion, US 97-10, amend! ing Student Conduct Code OAR 571-121-030, Sexual Misconduct, was taken with the motion passing unanimously (32-0).
The next order of business on the agenda was to obtain a sense of the senate concerning the proposed OAR 571-04-007, Conflicts of Interest and Abuse of Power: Sexual or Romantic Relationships with Students. This rule is proposed to discourage sexual or romantic relationships between faculty or staff members and students, and describes appropriate arrangements should such relationships occur. (Full text of this proposed rule is found as an attachment at the end of these minutes.) President Bybee reminded the senators that forms of this proposed rule had come before the senate twice before, the most recently last October. Since then, the rule has changed to include only faculty-student or staff-student relationships, not relationships between faculty or staff members only; also, the language has been changed to include romantic as well as sexual relationships.
To put the issue on the floor, Senator Engelking moved (seconded by Gilkey) that the senate endorse the proposed OAR 571-04-007, Conflicts of Interest and Abuse of Power: Sexual or Romantic Relationships with Students, as written. Senator Cheney Ryan, philosophy, began the discussion by endorsing the rule, stating that there is a need for such a rule and encouraging male faculty members in particular to endorse it. He indicated that the most grievous behavior in these matters does not happen over a casual glass of wine in a local restaurant, but rather behind closed doors. This is where the issue of how much proof is necessary for a student to succeed in a complaint is almost the sole issue of whether the student even makes the complaint at all. He noted that a strong message needs to be sent to students as incentive to complain when such unprofessional behavior occurs. However, Senator Ryan asked about the logic of the proposed rule's Section 5, Abuse of Process! , dealing with disciplinary sanctions against students making false complaints. It appears to be an extremely strong disincentive for students to make a complaint. Senator Unger moved (seconded by Rogers) to strike Section 5 from the senate's endorsement of the proposed rule. Discussion focused on the need for Section 5 in the rule if actions against persons making false claims are already part of the sexual harassment complaint process. Mr. Ken Lehrman, affirmative action, replied that the complainant would have to be shown to be making intentional, willful false complaints. Senator Terry OíKeefe, business, though it good to have the section included as a valid protection against false complains. Mr. Alan Wixman, geography, taking a position against the amendment to strike Section 5, related a personal experience he had with an accusing student, and indicated that while we should by all means protect students, we should also protect the interests of faculty.
Senator Dave Soper, physics, stated that there are provisions in the Student Conduct Code to deal with bringing forth false information and making false claims. Mr. David Jacobs, honors college, felt there should be some sanction against false claims made by students. Senator Ryan again pointed out that if there is language already in the code about false complaints, it need not be in this rule as well. Senator OíKeefe argued that if Section 5 is redundant, it is another way of having such information known as it relates to that part of the code. Discussion then moved toward whether the language in Section 5 was the same as in other parts of Student Conduct Code, to which Mr. Peter Swan, law, replied that Section 5 language was stronger. At this point, there was a successful call for the question. The vote to strike Section 5 from the senate's endorsement of proposed OAR 571-04-007 failed.
The discussion proceeding to another area of concern with the proposed rule. Senator Soper moved (seconded by Belitz) to endorse the rule "except that the senate recommends that Section 4(a), 'Basis for Findings,' be modified so that no sanction of dismissal, or of reduction in salary by more than 5%, or suspension without pay for more than two months shall be imposed unless the evidence is clear and convincing." Senator Soper explained that the intent of this amendment is to provide a higher standard of evidence that more aptly matches the extent to which faculty membersí careers and lives may be ruined if falsely convicted of violating the proposed rule. For so serious an impact on a faculty member's life, a more rigorous level of proof than a preponderance (51%) of evidence should be required to find the faculty member in rule violation with ensuing sanctions. Senator Maury Holland, law, also spoke in support of this amendment. He said the purpose of differen! t levels of burdens of proof are instigated to help the decision makers allocate the risk involved in making an erroneous judgment. Having a higher standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence minimizes the chances of making an erroneous judgment against a faculty member. It is the senate's job to make certain that the process involved in finding a faculty member guilty of violating this rule is a fair process that minimizes chances for an making a false conviction. It was also noted that this amendment is supported broadly across campus according to an unscientific sampling survey conducted on a Web page. Mr. Paul Simonds, IFS president, remarked in support of the amendment that we should not err on the side of having too lenient a burden of proof for evidence in such accusations.
Senator Jeff Hurwit, art history, continued the discussion asking if the standard of evidence in the proposed amendment is the same or similar to that used in the private sector. Mr. Swan responded that clear and convincing evidence is used in cases involving punitive damages and in cases of fraud. Making an additional point, Mr. Swan reminded the senators of the differences in the grievance investigatory process and the sanctioning process. The level of evidence required in investigating a grievance is embedded in all university legislation, that is, a preponderance of the evidence. The proposed amendment would increase that level to clear and convincing evidence. However, in the sanctioning process if a sanction greater than a written reprimand is sought, the State Board of Higher Education standards supercede the universityís authority, and their standard is a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, if the university sets a standard of evidence higher than a! preponderance of the evidence level for sanctioning, it would have to lobby the state board to use the higher standard. Ms. Jenna Wasson, ASUO, suggested that the clear and convincing evidence standard be used only in extreme cases involving dismissal, which is the only time that standard applies in the recently passed amendment to the Student Conduct Code.
Senator Margie Paris, law. spoke against the amendment. She agreed with Mr. Swanís analysis of the difference between investigatory and sanctioning processes. She stated that she would hate for the senate to send a message that while we abhor this kind of conduct, the burden of proof is set at a higher standard for only this section of the proposed rule. Finally, Senator Paris noted that when clear and convincing evidence is the standard in criminal trials, the state is prosecuting, and juries tend to believe the defendant is guilty (otherwise the state wouldnít prosecute). However, in the university setting, the accused faculty member will be heard by a group of other faculty members and administrators with no preconceived notion of guilt. Several other senators concurred that the wrong message is sent if the standard of proof is higher for only this part of the OARs; yet Senator Simonds noted that the senate is only sending a "sense of the senate", not rewr! iting the proposed rule. We can say that the higher standard of evidence is the direction in which we want to see this legislation go. In contrast, Ms. Marie Vitulli, mathematics, reiterated the point that in sanctioning matters, the state boardís rules supercede those of the university, so the issue is beyond our jurisdiction to amend the proposed rule in such a manner. The discussion having wound down, Senator Soperís amendment to Section 4 (a) to require clear and convincing evidence in sanctions involving dismissal, reduction in pay, or suspension without pay for more than two months was put to a vote and failed (8-22).
Next, the question on the main motion was called which put the endorsement of the main motion, the proposed OAR rule on abuse of power and conflict of interest in faculty-student relationships, on the senate floor. After a brief discussion as to whether the senateís vote on endorsing the proposed rule required a two-thirds majority vote, President Bybee ruled that a majority vote was all that was needed. Senator Unger appealed President Bybeeís ruling, but his appeal was defeated. The main motion to endorse proposed OAR 571-121-007 was then put to a vote and passed (25-5).
Noting the lateness of the hour and that the chair of the University Curriculum Committee had to leave shortly to teach a class, President Bybee asked for a motion to suspend the rules in order to move to the curriculum report on the agenda. Mr. Steven Chatfield, dance, drew the senateís attention to some self-assessment the committee had done concerning its effectiveness. In particular, Mr. Chatfield noted a potential problem with meeting the quarterly report requirement in December and again in May when the senate meetings for those months are held early in the month. There is barely enough time for the committee to do its work and generate a report for timely review prior to the senate meeting. To help account for this, the UCC is reverting to requiring 12 copies of proposed curricular changes in order to expedite the committeeís work on the proposed changes. In opening the floor to any challenges to the curriculum report, Mr. Chatfield asked that all clerical chang! es to forwarded to the university editor, Ms. Nan Coppock-Bland, within the next two weeks. Although Mr. Chatfield alluded to some rather substantial changes in the overhaul of the College of Educationís courses ñ specifically, the change from 3 to 4 credit hours for writing classes ñ no discussion was forthcoming. A motion to accept the report of the UCC was made, and hearing no discussion, was voted on and passed.
Reverting to the original agenda order, President Bybee asked for and received a motion and second to accept the recommendations of the Committee on Committee for committee appointments for 1997-98. The motion to accept the recommendations was passed. President Bybee acknowledged the committeeís work on filling the committees with good people for next yearís committeesí work. Similarly, President Bybee asked for and received a motion and second to accept the Senate Nominating Committeeís recommendations for appointments to next yearís Committee on Committees. The motion to accept the Nominating Committeeís recommendation also passed.
President Bybee alerted the senate to two notices of motions being made by the Undergraduate Education policy and Coordinating Council that will not be acted upon until fall term 1997. Motion US 97-12 deals with the elimination of double counting of B.A. foreign language and B.S. mathematics and CIS courses for group-satisfying credit; motion US 97-13 establishes conditions for students earning concurrent baccalaureate degrees.
The last item of new business was a status report on parking and transportation alternatives presented by Senator Engelking and Senator Linda Kintz, English. Senator Kintz began her involvement with this issue after seeing the need to develop transportation alternatives to prevent more parking structures being put up which ruin the community environment. She noted that the city is actually doing more in the way of alternative transportation than the university. Senator Kintz referred to the Boulder, Colorado plan (distributed to senators earlier) that uses a jitney bus system between the university and downtown shopping and the local mall. It runs every 10 minutes ñ every 6 minutes during rush hour -- and costs a quarter. The system is immensely popular and is being expanded into neighborhood community areas as well. Here in Eugene, Mr. Fred Tepfer, university planner, said there were several things similar that the university was planning in cooperation with Lane Tran! sit District (LTD). Soon to be available is a bus from the UO to downtown leaving every 10 minutes. They are close to having a jitney bus system ñ electric (battery driven), and also in the works is an express bus (rapid transit) from West 11th to Thurston, thus passing near the UO. In LTDís long range planning they will develop loops into neighborhoods that intersect with the downtown transit systems. A transit only bridge is also being considered which would help to link up the north side of town and Autzen with the campus.
Other plans surrounding the parking issue include encouraging students to "store" their cars over at Autzen Stadium during the week. Additional proposals are being developed to expand several current lots. What seems to be needed is the same kind of rallying around a cause that occurred with recycling issues ñ with great results. However, this kind of activity has not happened with parking and alternative transportation issues. A university task force is needed to study the issues thoroughly. Senator Engelking noted the importance of having faculty get "on board" and embrace this approach to solving parking problems. Alternative transportation requires a great deal of cooperation and negotiating with a large number of entities and agencies, and if the university is not fully committed, the chances of it working are diminished greatly. Instead of building parking in the center of the UO, the idea is to use the existing parking at the UO and to use Autzen S! tadium parking. The problem is that the Willamette River separates the campus from Autzen. Proposed solutions might be to run a tram over the pedestrian bridge, or run trams on either side of the bridge and walk over the bridge from one to the other. Or, to get downtown involvement, have downtown employees use Autzen for their cars and run a bus from there to downtown. Frequency of the buses is a problem, as is cost. Charging downtown employees a little less to park at Autzen than the downtown garages might offset cost.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
President Bybee drew the senators attention to several handouts that were available for perusal and action: an IFS report on budgeting information regarding the current state legislative activity on the "add back" issues in the higher education budget; a report from the senate Budget Committee regarding the level of budget cuts departments were asked to prepare; and the results of the senateís internal survey on its first full year of operation after the reorganization. Additionally, copies of the results of the spring elections were also available. Finally, President Bybee reminded everyone to come to the May 28th senate organizational meeting where the new officers will be confirmed (president) and elected (vice president). At this point, Senator Gilkey wished to offer a personal statement of thanks to President Bybee and Secretary Steigelman for the outstanding work they have done this year for the senate.
The extraordinarily long meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p. m.
Secretary of the Faculty
Proposed Oregon Administrative Rule 571-04-007
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND ABUSES OF POWER: SEXUAL OR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH STUDENTS
The University is committed to fostering a learning environment characterized by professional behavior and fair and impartial treatment.
A sexual or romantic relationship between a faculty member and a student or a staff member and a student can involve a conflict of interest, an abuse of power, compromised judgment and impaired objectivity when the faculty member or staff member has supervisory, evaluative or other power over the student. The power differential in the relationship may even make a student's consent to a sexual or romantic relationship suspect.
Moreover, the relationship may create an apparent or actual conflict of interest that can adversely affect other members of the University community. It places the faculty member or staff member in a position to favor the interest of the student in the sexual or romantic relationship at the expense of third parties. Even if consensual, the relationship may be disruptive of the collegiality and mutual trust that are essential for the effective functioning of an academic unit.
THEREFORE, it may be a conflict of interest and abuse of power for: faculty members to engage in sexual or romantic relationships with students enrolled in their classes or otherwise subject to their direct supervision or evaluation; staff members to engage in sexual or romantic relationships with students subject to their direct supervision or authority; work supervisors to engage in sexual or romantic relationship with students subject to their direct supervision or evaluation. This conflict of interest and abuse of power can occur even when both parties have consented to the relationship.
(l) Faculty/Student Sexual Relationships
(a) Within the instructional context: No faculty member should initiate or acquiesce in a sexual or romantic relationship with a student who is enrolled in a course being taught by the faculty member or whose academic work (including work as a teaching assistant) is supervised or evaluated by the faculty member. Should such a sexual or romantic relationship occur, notwithstanding this policy, a faculty member who fails to make prompt appropriate arrangements creates an apparent or actual conflict of interest. "Appropriate arrangement" is defined in (8)(a).
(b) Outside the instructional context: A sexual or romantic relationship between a faculty member and a student outside the instructional context may result in a conflict of interest and an abuse of power, particularly when the faculty member and student are in the same academic unit or in units that are academically allied. If such a situation should develop, notwithstanding this policy, the faculty member should immediately distance himself or herself from any decision that may reward or penalize the student with whom he or she is sexually or romantically involved. Failure to take this action constitutes a violation of the faculty member's professional obligations.
(2) Staff/Student Sexual Relationships: A sexual or romantic relationship between a staff member and a student may lead to a conflict of interest when the staff member has supervisory, evaluative or other power over the student. Failure to withdraw from such a relationship or to make prompt appropriate arrangements (defined in (8)(a)) constitutes unwillingness to perform satisfactorily the responsibilities of the position and demonstrates unfitness for the position.
(3) Complaint process: Complaints by students with standing to allege a violation of this rule shall be handled in accordance with procedures set forth in OAR 571-03-025. Complaints may be initiated by the student in the sexual or romantic relationship OR by third parties who are also in an evaluative relationship with the faculty or staff member and who allege they have been specifically adversely affected by the relationship. Complaints initiated by the students in the sexual or romantic relationship must be filed within 365 days of the end of the supervisory or evaluative relationship. Complaints initiated by third parties must be filed within 30 days of the end of the third party's evaluative relationship. The President can also initiate formal proceedings under OAR 580-21-330; nothing in this rule shall preclude such action by the President.
(4) Basis for findings: In assessing the evidence in a complaint
(a) initiated by the student in the sexual or romantic relationship, the decisionmaker may only base his/her finding of a violation of this rule upon no less than a preponderance of evidence that the sexual or romantic relationship occurred and that prompt appropriate arrangements were not made;
(b) initiated by a third party, the decisionmaker may only base his/her findings of a violation of this rule upon clear and convincing evidence that a sexual or romantic relationship occurred and that prompt appropriate arrangements were not made, leading to actual injury or prejudice;
(c) consent to the sexual or romantic relationship does not obviate a conflict of interest as defined by this rule.
(5) Abuse of Process: Complaints found to have been intentionally dishonest or made with willful disregard of the truth may subject the complainant to appropriate disciplinary proceedings and the full range of sanctions available therein.
(6) Sanctions: Only the party with evaluative, supervisory or other power is subject to sanction for violating this rule. For faculty, imposition of sanctions under OAR 580-21-320, et seq., typically involves a hearing panel of peers. Documentation (defined in 8 (c)) of appropriate arrangements will be taken into account in assessing whether a conflict of interest has occurred, whether it has been mitigated, or in determining the severity of sanction, if any. The following list of sanctions that may be imposed is not intended to be exhaustive, and more than one sanction may be imposed for any single offense: written reprimand placed in the personnel file of the faculty or staff member; reassignment of duties (e.g., teaching, administrative, or service duties); reduction in salary; suspension without pay; dismissal.
(a) Written reprimand may be imposed at the discretion of the appropriate Vice President.
(b) Reassignment of duties, reduction in salary, suspension without pay, or dismissal may be recommended by the appropriate vice president, but may be imposed only after completion of appropriate proceedings:
(A) For faculty members, for cause proceedings are outlined in OAR 580-21-320, et seq., provided that in the case of a proceeding predicated upon a third-party claim, the evidence to support a sanction must be found to be clear and convincing.
(B) For classified employees, sanctions will be imposed in accordance with applicable collective bargaining agreements.
(7) Assistance/Intervention: Any member of the University community who enters into a sexual or romantic relationship that may constitute a conflict of interest or abuse of power as described above is encouraged strongly to seek the assistance of his or her unit director, department head, dean, supervisor, or the Director of the Office of Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity in making appropriate arrangements and providing documentation of those arrangements. If, prior to or during the course of a sexual or romantic relationship, doubt exists about whether this rule would apply, the party is encouraged strongly to consult with the unit director, or, department head, dean, supervisor, or the Director of the Office of Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity. Disclosure during such consultation shall be confidential to the extent possible. No action will be taken that could result in sanctions unless and until a complaint is filed.
(8) Definitions: As used in this rule
(a) "Appropriate arrangement" means an action reasonably calculated to remove or substantially mitigate a conflict or a potential conflict of interest or abuse of power, taking into account the interests of the University, the parties to the relationship, and others actually or potentially affected. These actions may include, but are not limited to: moving a student to another section of the same class; appointing a different faculty member to serve on a thesis, dissertation, or other evaluative committee; establishing alternative means of evaluation of academic or work performance; moving a student employee to another position of the same or comparable status and duties.
(b) "Conflict of interest" means incompatibility of the interest of the University in securing detached, objective performance of instructional, supervisory, or other duties with the personal interest of the faculty or staff member involved in a sexual or romantic relationship with a student he or she supervises or evaluates.
(c) "Documentation" includes but is not limited to a written, dated, and signed description of the actions taken filed with a unit director, department head, dean, supervisor, or the director of the Office of Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity. For those not willing to use a third-party repository, it may still be advisable to retain a written, signed, and dated declaration of the mitigating actions taken.
(d) "Faculty" or "faculty member" means all those employees who hold academic appointments, including officers of administration and graduate teaching fellows, and anyone else who teaches classes at the University and/or supervises the academic work of students.
(e) "Power" means the real or objectively apparent authority or ability of an employee to confer or influence the academic, employment or other benefits of a student including, but not limited to: giving grades, evaluating performance, awarding financial benefits, or provision of University services or activities.
(f) "Standing" means that a student has a supervisory or evaluative relationship with a faculty or staff member and is specifically injured by a conflict of interest as defined by this rule.
(g) "Staff" or "staff member" means all University employees who do not hold academic rank.
(h) "Supervisor" or "employee with supervisory responsibility" means all employees who exercise responsibility for provision of University services, assigning work, evaluating performance, or otherwise making decisions that affect the terms and conditions of a student's employment or academic experience at the University.