UTMB HANDBOOK OF OPERATING PROCEDURES

Section 5 Faculty Policies Subject 5.3 Appointments and Rank Policy 5.3.10 Termination

06/16/97 - Originated - Reviewed w/ changes -Reviewed w/o changes Office of the President -Author

Termination

Audience	The information in this document is for use by all faculty members.
Policy	Termination by UTMB of the employment of a faculty member who has been granted tenure and of all other faculty members before the expiration of the stated period of their appointment, except as is otherwise provided in the Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 6, or by resignation or retirement, will be only for good cause shown. In each case, the issue will be determined by an equitable procedure, affording protection to the rights of the individual and to the interests of the System. The Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 6.3 describes this termination process in detail
Grievances Related to Termination	The president shall assure that all allegations against a faculty member that involve the potential for termination are reviewed under the direction of the chief academic officer unless another officer is designated by the president. • The faculty member who is the subject of the allegations shall be given an opportunity to be interviewed and shall have the right to present a grievance, in person, to the chief academic officer on an issue or subject related to the allegations under review. • The chief academic officer shall take the grievance, if any, into consideration prior to making a determination whether the allegations are supported by evidence that constitutes good cause for termination. Upon making that determination, the chief academic officer will recommend to the president whether to proceed with charges for termination. • Failure to present a grievance to the chief academic officer prior to his or her recommendation shall not preclude a faculty member from presenting an issue or subject to the special hearing tribunal in defense of charges for termination that may result from the review.

Grievances Related to Termination

• A tenured faculty member who is recommended for termination on the basis of periodic evaluation must be given the opportunity for referral of the matter to nonbinding alternative dispute resolution, as required by Texas Education Code Section 51.942 and in compliance with applicable U. T. System and institutional policies and procedures for alternative dispute resolution, prior to referral of the charges to a hearing tribunal under Subdivision 6.33 of this Chapter. • A faculty member under review for matters that may result in charges for termination may file a grievance pursuant to a faculty grievance procedure only if the subject of the grievance is not involved in the review. A pending grievance may proceed only if it does not involve a subject under review. • If the president determines that the allegations are supported by evidence that constitutes good cause for termination, the president will meet with the faculty member, explain the allegations and supporting evidence, and give the faculty member a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the president, to respond either orally or in writing. • In cases of incompetency or gross immorality, where the facts are admitted, or in the case of a felony conviction, the hearing procedures identified below shall not apply and dismissal by the president will follow.

Hearing Procedures

In cases where other offenses are charged, and in all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused faculty member will be informed in writing of the charges. If the president determines that the nature of the charges and the evidence are such that it is in the best interest of the institution, the accused faculty member may be suspended with pay pending the completion of the hearing and final decision by the Board. On reasonable notice, the charges will be heard by a special hearing tribunal of at least three faculty members. The academic rank of each member of the tribunal must be at least equal to that of the accused faculty member.

Hearing Procedures (cont’d)

The notice will specify the date, time, and place for the hearing and will specify the names of the faculty members appointed to the hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal members are appointed by the president from a standing panel (pool) of members of the faculty. At least 50% of the panel members from which the hearing tribunal members are appointed shall be selected by a procedure established by the faculty governance organization, selected by an existing faculty committee with oversight for university-wide faculty committee selection, or selected through an approved process designed to provide appropriate faculty input into the selection. The remaining members of the panel shall be appointed by the president. A minimum of one member of a hearing tribunal appointed by a president is to be from among panel members selected by the faculty input, existent faculty committee or faculty governance procedure. • In every such hearing the accused faculty member will have the right to appear in person and by counsel of the accused's selection and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who may appear. If the accused faculty member is represented by counsel, the institution is entitled to be represented by counsel from the Office of General Counsel. • The accused faculty member shall have the right to testify, but may not be required to do so, and may introduce in his or her behalf all evidence, written or oral, which may be relevant and • material to the charges. • A stenographic or electronic record of the proceedings will be taken and filed with the Board, and such record shall be made accessible to the accused. A representative of the institution may appear before the hearing tribunal to present witnesses and evidence in support of the charge against such faculty member, and such institutional representatives shall have the right to cross- examine the accused faculty member (if the faculty member testifies) and the witnesses offered on behalf of the faculty member. The institution has the burden to prove good cause for termination by the greater weight of the credible evidence