Ohio Administrative Code › Title 3335 - Ohio State University › Chapter 3335-5 - Faculty Members In General › Section 3335-5-04.1 - Procedures for complaints of failure to meet academic responsibilities

Current through all regulations passed and filed through July 1, 2024
(A) This rule
			 applies to complaints made against faculty members involving their failure to
			 meet academic responsibilities as defined in paragraph (C) of rule
			 3335-5-01 of the Administration
			 Code as well as complaints arising from the
			 investigatory process set forth in the campus free speech policy. A
			 faculty member may be disciplined for violations established under this rule,
			 and may be disciplined up to and including termination for serious failure to
			 meet faculty obligations or violations of the campus
			 free speech policy. For the purposes of this rule "serious failure to
			 meet faculty obligations" is defined as conduct that reflects gross
			 indifference or consistent failure to satisfactorily perform the faculty
			 obligations set forth in paragraph (C) of rule
			 3335-5-01 of the Administration
			 Code. If complaints against a faculty member are
			 brought concurrently under both rules
			 3335-5-04.1 and
			 3335-5-04.4 of the
			 Administrative Code, those complaints may be consolidated into one proceeding,
			 retaining the relevant evidentiary standard for each complaint.
(B) Initial proceedings.
(1) A complaint may be filed by any student
			 or university employee, including employees from administrative offices who are
			 filing complaints arising out of investigations by those offices. Complaints
			 may be filed with a chair, dean, associate dean, provost, vice provost for
			 academic policy and faculty resources (hereinafter "vice provost"), or the
			 president. All complaints must be referred to the vice provost for initial
			 review in accordance with this rule.
(2) The complaint shall be set forth in
			 writing and shall state facts to support an allegation that a faculty member
			 has failed to meet their academic responsibilities.
(a) The vice provost shall review every
			 complaint to determine whether the complaint presents an actionable violation
			 and that the complaint is not clearly retaliatory or abusive in nature. If the
			 vice provost is named as a respondent, the provost shall identify a designee.
			 If the vice provost determines that a complaint either does not allege a
			 violation that can be addressed under this rule or was filed for clearly
			 retaliatory or abusive purposes, the vice provost must consult with the
			 complainant within seven days of filing to clarify the nature of the complaint.
			 The vice provost may dismiss such a complaint within seven days of consulting
			 with the complainant if it cannot be addressed under this rule or is clearly
			 retaliatory or abusive in nature. This determination does not prohibit referral
			 of a complaint filed under this rule to another applicable university process.
(i) The complainant may appeal this dismissal
			 in writing to the provost within seven days of this decision. Upon receiving
			 such an appeal, the provost may either reinstate the complaint or dismiss it,
			 and that decision is final. The provost must issue a decision within fourteen
			 days of receiving such an appeal.
(b) If the vice provost determines that the
			 complaint should proceed or if the complaint is reinstated by the provost, the
			 vice provost shall furnish a copy of the complaint to the respondent and shall
			 refer it to the respondent's department chair for a probable cause review in
			 accordance with paragraph (C) of this rule.
(i) If the faculty member's department chair
			 is the complainant or respondent, the complaint shall be referred to the
			 faculty member's dean for the initial probable cause review.
(ii) For the purpose of this provision, the
			 term "department chair" shallinclude
			 school directors
											and deans of colleges without departments.
			 For regional campus faculty, the campus dean or
			 director shall serve as the department chair for the probable cause review. If
			 the complaint is filed by the regional campus dean or director, the college
			 dean shall serve as the regional campus dean or director for the probable cause
			 review.
(3) Only allegations stated in the complaint
			 shall be considered at the various stages of deliberation. However, additional
			 facts relevant to the allegations set forth in the complaint may be presented
			 throughout the process.