OLPM

UNH.II  Academic Policies
(Note: OLPM sections on this page may be cited following the format of, for example, "UNH.II.C.1.1". These policies may be amended at any time, do not constitute an employment contract, and are provided here only for ease of reference and without any warranty of accuracy. See OLPM Main Menu for details.)

C. Misconduct in Scholarly Activity1

1.   Introduction and Guiding Principles. One of the University's primary missions is to support the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The University community must hold itself accountable for the conduct of any scholarly activity undertaken in fulfillment of this mission. In particular, all members of the community are expected to exercise appropriate supervision of themselves and those under their direction so as to ensure the integrity of the scholarly process. The University community's obligations in this regard should be seen as part of higher education's responsibility to promote and sustain public confidence in the value of scholarly inquiry. Several key principles inform the policy and procedures set forth below.

1.1   First, the reputation of the University and the reputations of its scholars are equally vital to the health of the University; and actions that might jeopardize this health should not be tolerated.

1.2   Second, in the event of an allegation of misconduct, the confidentiality of all parties involved should be maintained to an extent consistent with UNH's obligations to inform the scholarly community in a timely way and, if such is the case, any sponsoring agency.

1.3   Third, each party involved should have an equal chance to present its case; in particular, the subject of any allegation of scholarly misconduct should have the opportunity to respond to the complainant during the proceedings.

1.4   Fourth, decisions and actions taken during the proceedings should be based on the best and most accurate information and evidence available, and vigorous effort should be made to obtain such material.

1.5   Fifth, all information and evidence gathered, including oral and/or written testimony, should be subjected to the impartial judgment of individuals possessing the relevant expertise, with the "preponderance of the evidence standard2" applied as the measure of proof during an investigation.

2.   Scope and Applicability. This document sets forth the UNH policy on misconduct in scholarly activity and details the procedures for dealing with an allegation of such misconduct. The policy and procedures become effective June 1, 1998, and are applicable to all members of the University community including, but not limited to faculty, staff, and graduate and undergraduate students. Furthermore, this document does not distinguish between funded and unfunded efforts, except where it reflects specific requirements of a sponsoring agency, for example the notification of an agency that an investigation of an allegation of scholarly misconduct has commenced. The Office of the Vice President for Research (VPR) shall be responsible for administration of this policy and its procedures. Changes in the policy or its procedures must be approved by the President of the University of New Hampshire.

2.1   Misconduct in scholarly activity is a specific instance of impropriety within the broader domain of personal and professional conduct. Allegations of misconduct outside the scope of this policy should be directed to the cognizant chair, dean, director, vice president, or other University official. The process of investigation and reporting obligations may differ from those required for cases covered under this document.

2.2   This policy and procedures should not be construed to limit the rights of any member of the University community, including those of UNH faculty as outlined in their collective bargaining agreement, staff as detailed in the University System of New Hampshire (USNH) Policy Manual and relevant handbooks, and graduate and undergraduate students as outlined in their document on rights, rules, and responsibilities.

3.   Definition of Misconduct in Scholarly Activity

3.1   Misconduct means:

3.1.1   Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scholarly activities, or in reporting results from scholarly activities;

3.1.2   Retaliation of any kind against a person who has brought forth an allegation of misconduct or who has provided information about a suspected case of misconduct.

3.2   This definition is consistent with that used by federal funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Public Health Service (PHS). Examples of misconduct include, but are not limited to:

3.2.1   Misappropriation of the ideas of others, including the unauthorized use of privileged and/or confidential information;

3.2.2   Misrepresentation of the results of scholarly activity or scholarly credentials;

3.2.3   Misattribution of credit with regard to authorship.

3.3   Misconduct in scholarly activity does not include honest error or differences in interpretations or judgments with respect to scholarly issues that are inherent in the scientific and creative process. Furthermore, this definition should not be construed to stifle academic freedom.

3.4   Allegations of plagiarism by undergraduate or graduate students who are completing normal course assignments are not intended to be covered by this policy. Such cases are subject to the policies of the Office of the Vice President for Student and Academic Services with respect to student conduct, as outlined in the "Student Handbook on Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities."

3.5   Requirements for findings of scholarly misconduct. A finding of scholarly misconduct requires that:

3.5.1   There must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the research community; and

3.5.2   The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and,

3.5.3   The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

3.6   Evidentiary Standards. The following evidentiary standards apply to findings made under this part.

3.6.1   A University finding of misconduct in scholarly activity must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

3.6.2   The University has the burden of proof for making a finding of misconduct in scholarly activity. The destruction, absence of, or respondent's failure to provide records adequately documenting the questioned scholarship is evidence of misconduct in scholarly activity where the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the respondent's conduct constitutes a significant deviation from accepted practices of the relevant scholarly community.

3.6.3   The respondent has the burden of going forward with and the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any and all affirmative defenses raised. In determining whether the University has carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.

3.6.4   The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving by a preponderance of the evidence any mitigating factors that are relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions following a misconduct proceeding.

4.   Policy Statement

4.1   The University of New Hampshire does not condone and will not tolerate any act of misconduct in scholarly activity by a member of its community. Violation of this policy is grounds for administrative sanction. The University strives to ensure that all members of its community understand and uphold this policy.

5.   Procedures

5.1   An allegation of misconduct in scholarly activity shall be handled through several procedural stages: reporting, inquiry, investigation and determination, and administration of sanctions if so warranted. The reporting stage initiates a formal mechanism designed to consider an allegation with the seriousness it is due. During the inquiry stage, preliminary fact finding takes place to substantiate or refute the allegation. If the allegation is found to have substance, then a formal investigation is undertaken. Following the investigation and a determination of whether or not misconduct has occurred, administrative sanctions may be applied as appropriate.

5.2   Building on the principles embodied in the New Hampshire State Whistleblowers' Protection Act (NH RSA 275-E), the identity of the individual(s) alleging misconduct should remain confidential during the inquiry stage of this procedure, unless that person (or persons) consents to the disclosure of his/her identity.

6.   Reporting

6.1   All members of the UNH community, including administrators, faculty, staff, and graduate and undergraduate students should report any suspicion of scholarly misconduct without delay. Causes for suspicion include, but are not limited to, direct observation, inferences based on data or research practices, or specific reports or statements received from knowledgeable individuals and/or organizations outside the University community. In most cases the allegation should be directed to the supervisor of the subject of the complaint, preferably, though not necessarily, in the form of a written and signed statement3. (The supervisor will normally be the department chair, dean, director, or next higher administrative officer of the subject of the complaint.) The individual to whom the allegation has been directed shall notify the Office of the VPR in writing and in strict confidence as soon as possible, and in any event, within five working days of receipt of the complaint. Alternatively, the allegation may be sent directly to the Office of the VPR.

6.2   In addition, the Office of the VPR should be alerted promptly if any of the following circumstances detailed below are discovered during the reporting stage or any of the subsequent stages (inquiry, investigation and determination, or administration of sanctions):

6.2.1   an immediate health hazard;

6.2.2   an immediate need to protect federal, state, local, or University funds or equipment;

6.2.3   an immediate need to protect the complainant, the subject of the allegation, or their associates;

6.2.4   likelihood that an alleged incident of misconduct in scholarly activity will be reported publicly; or

6.2.5   a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation.

6.3   If these emergency situations arise in connection with scholarly activity that is externally sponsored, the University may, and in some cases must, notify sponsoring agencies directly and immediately. The University may also take interim administrative (not disciplinary) action as necessary to protect funds, equipment, and/or the purposes of the sponsored grant or contract that may be involved. Notifications and any actions taken in this regard will be coordinated by the Office of the VPR.

7.   Responsibility for Maintenance and Custody of Records and Evidence

7.1   The University has an obligation to ensure that it maintains adequate records for a misconduct proceeding.

7.2   Either before or when the University notifies the respondent of the allegation, inquiry or investigation, the University will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the records and evidence needed to conduct the misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.

7.3   Where appropriate, the University will give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the records.

7.4   The University will undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional records or evidence that are discovered during the course of a misconduct proceeding, except that where the records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.

7.5   The University will maintain the research records and evidence as required by this Policy.

8.   Inquiry

8.1   Following receipt in the Office of the VPR of an allegation of misconduct in scholarly activity, a team consisting of the supervisor of the subject of the complaint, the next higher administrative officer of the subject, an appropriate staff, faculty, or University official4 and the VPR shall be formed. The VPR shall act in a timely manner to call the initial meeting of the inquiry team, at which time its members will elect a chair. If an individual on this team has a conflict of interest5 with the case, then the next higher administrative officer for the individual in conflict shall serve instead. Under no circumstance may the complainant be a member of this team.

8.2   The inquiry team should report the allegation in full and in writing to the subject of the complaint in a timely way, remind the subject of his/her right to legal counsel, and provide a copy of this policy and procedures. This initial communication must explicitly remind the subject of his/her obligations under section 3.6.2 to maintain the integrity of any records that may subsequently be used in a formal investigation of the allegation. The inquiry team will then engage in preliminary fact-finding and preliminary information gathering, to ascertain if there is cause for formal investigation into the case. The inquiry team should strive to gather and consider available evidence in a manner that does not incriminate, or cast suspicion on the subject of the allegation. The subject should be encouraged to provide a written response to the allegation and submit his/her view on the alleged action(s) or deed(s). The inquiry team may also interview others in the community who have knowledge of aspects of the case, including the complainant. The subject should also be encouraged to suggest persons to interview. It should be recognized that damage to the reputation of the subject of an allegation might result from soliciting information from his/her peers and colleagues, even if complete confidentiality is requested. Thus, the team should exercise circumspection in conducting its business.

8.3   Communication of findings

8.3.1   Within thirty working days of receipt of the allegation in the Office of the VPR, unless extended for good cause by the VPR on the basis of a written finding that it is infeasible to complete the necessary work within the prescribed time frame, the inquiry team shall reach a decision as to whether there is or is not cause to pursue a formal investigation into the case, and issue a final report that documents this decision. The VPR will communicate the findings of the team in writing to all parties involved. All notes and other documentation compiled during the course of the inquiry shall be retained in a secure and confidential manner in the Office of the VPR for at least seven years past the submission of the inquiry team's final report. The records may be kept in an appropriate electronic format. If the scholarly activity in question is a funded effort, the records shall be retained for seven years past the submission of the principal investigator's final project report to the sponsoring agency (or seven years past the submission of the inquiry team's final report, whichever is greater). In the event that legal action arises from the allegation, the records shall be retained until the matter is resolved (or three years past the submission of the principal investigator's final project report to the sponsoring agency, or seven years past the submission of the inquiry team's final report to the Office of the VPR, whichever is greater).

8.3.2   A draft report of these findings should be given to the subject of the complaint and the complainant in a timely way, so that reasonable opportunity for reaction to and comment on the draft is provided to the subject and the complainant. This commentary will become part of the final report of the findings of the inquiry team. The report should contain sufficient detail to enable an assessment of the conclusion of whether or not a formal investigation is warranted. This document should:

8.3.2.1   State the allegation in full

8.3.2.2   Describe the facts of the case as found during the inquiry and the information reviewed

8.3.2.3   Summarize the interviews conducted

8.3.2.4   Clearly state the conclusions reached and the reasons for these findings, and

8.3.2.5   Indicate whether or not cause for a formal investigation exists.

8.4   Conclusion of inquiry stage

8.4.1   If the inquiry team finds that there is no cause to undertake an investigation into the alleged misconduct in scholarly activity, then the VPR should promptly write a letter of exoneration to the subject and the matter will be considered officially closed. This letter of exoneration shall be included with the final report of the inquiry team. The complainant shall also be notified of this decision and provided with a summary of the final report from the inquiry prepared by the chair of the inquiry team. Any individuals interviewed during this stage will also be notified by the VPR that the matter is officially closed. The VPR will provide the final report of the findings of the inquiry team to the subject of the complaint and the complainant.

8.4.2   If there is suspicion on the part of the inquiry team that the allegation of misconduct in scholarly activity was not made in good faith, inquiry shall be initiated by the University. Improper behavior of this type falls under the purview of the more general USNH (USY V) and UNH (UNH V) policies regarding personal and professional conduct and the relevant procedures will apply.

8.4.3   If the inquiry team concludes that an investigation into the case is warranted, then the VPR should promptly identify the complainant to the subject of the allegation and together with other members of the inquiry team oversee the formation of a Peer Investigating Committee (PIC) to undertake an investigation to determine if misconduct has taken place. (See below for composition and selection of the Committee.) Once the PIC is formed, the VPR will provide the final report of the findings of the inquiry team to the subject of the complaint and the complainant.

8.4.4   The VPR should also notify immediately any sponsoring agencies supporting the scholarly activity in question that an allegation of misconduct has been brought, that an inquiry has found cause to undertake a formal investigation, and that such an investigation is to begin. At this time among federal agencies, PHS and NSF have specific notification requirements, and the University will adhere to these reporting obligations.

9.   Investigation and Determination

9.1   The purpose of this stage is to gather, examine, and evaluate the evidence of the case, establish the facts of the activity in question, analyze these facts to determine whether or not misconduct in scholarly activity has occurred, and recommend sanctions if there is a determination that misconduct has taken place.

9.2   The investigation shall be conducted by a Peer Investigating Committee (PIC) comprised of five individuals, appointed and provided with a formal written charge by the VPR, in consultation with the cognizant supervisor of the subject and an appropriate staff, faculty, or University official. The VPR will appoint and charge the PIC within 30 working days of receipt of notification from the inquiry team that an investigation is warranted.

9.2.1   For a case involving an administrator, the appropriate official is the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs; for a case involving a faculty member, the appropriate official is the Chair of the Professional Standards Committee of the Faculty Senate; for a staff member, the appropriate official is the Chair of the Operating Staff Council or Chair of the Professional, Administrative, and Technical Staff Council; for graduate students, the appropriate official is the Dean of the Graduate School; and for undergraduate students, the appropriate official is the Vice President for Student and Academic Services.

9.3   Selection and composition of the PIC:

9.3.1   The VPR, the supervisor of the subject of the allegation, and the appropriate staff, faculty, or University official as described above will identify a slate of prospective Committee members, which may include individuals from outside the University community. The subject of the allegation should also be encouraged to identify one or more individuals for inclusion on this slate. Development of this list of potential members of the Committee should be in compliance with UNH and USNH policies on non-discrimination. In addition, a number of factors may also be considered that reflect sensitivity to a range of issues including a candidate's professional background and its relevance to the case in question, reputation for personal integrity, supervisory experience, and/or other relevant professional and personal characteristics.

9.3.2   No member of the inquiry team (see section 8.1 above) may serve as a member of the Committee. Furthermore, no member of the Committee may have any significant personal or professional connection with the subject of the allegation or the activity in question. Thus, individuals who are approached about serving on the PIC must also receive a clear statement of disqualifying conditions. Upon recognizing a conflict of interest, the individual must immediately recuse himself/herself from the remainder of the proceedings. This action should be clearly documented in writing and should become part of the final report of the PIC.

9.3.3   Individuals on this list should first be contacted regarding their willingness and ability to serve, without revealing the identity of the subject of the allegation. Those willing to serve will be asked to provide an up-to-date curriculum vitae. At this point the subject of the allegation shall have the opportunity to indicate in writing concerns he/she may have regarding the potential membership of the Committee. The VPR together with the supervisor of the subject of the allegation, and the appropriate staff, faculty, or University official as described above will then appoint the PIC, taking into account the concerns raised by the subject. If the subject has supplied a list of potential members of the PIC, one member of the Committee shall be appointed from among those on the subject's list who have indicated a willingness to serve and who do not possess a conflict of interest. Since the identity of the subject will also be revealed at this time to the members of the PIC, another check for conflicts of interest should be made. If necessary, replacement members of the Committee will be chosen in the manner described above.

9.3.4   The VPR will consult with the members of the PIC and designate one to be Chair of the Committee. Upon establishment of the Committee and its receipt of a formal written charge, the VPR shall inform both the complainant and the subject of the allegation in writing of the formation, purpose, and membership of the PIC.

9.4   Conduct of investigation and standard of proof:

9.4.1   The USNH General Counsel shall advise the PIC on procedural and legal matters, and it is expected that the PIC will work closely with the Office of the VPR to develop an investigation plan which can serve to professionalize, depersonalize, and rationalize the process. At a minimum this plan should include:

9.4.1.1   A clear statement of what information is needed and how it should be obtained

9.4.1.2   What evidence is to be collected

9.4.1.3   A protocol for conducting interviews and for providing opportunity for the subject to respond to the substance of these interviews

9.4.1.4   A plan for data collection and preservation with steps to secure such material, as well as other physical evidence that might impinge on the case, and

9.4.1.5   A discussion of the distinction between fact-finding and deliberative components of the investigation. The investigation plan should also include how decisions regarding the internal operations of the Committee will be reached (e.g. voting vs. consensus), and provision for all parties involved in the case to receive regular progress reports.

9.4.2   The PIC should be prepared if necessary to seek additional expertise in order to carry out its investigation plan. In its evaluation of the evidence and deliberations the Committee shall use a "preponderance of the evidence" as its standard of proof for a finding of misconduct. This standard is consistent with that used by federal agencies. To reach a decision as to whether or not misconduct in scholarly activity has occurred, the Committee shall use a simple majority vote with a provision for minority reporting.

9.5   Communication of findings:

9.5.1   Within 90 working days of its formation, unless extended for good cause by the VPR on the basis of a written finding that it is infeasible to complete the necessary work within the prescribed time frame, the PIC shall provide a final report of its investigation to the VPR. The VPR will communicate the findings of the PIC in writing to all parties involved. The report from the PIC and all notes from interviews and meetings, as well as all documentary evidence compiled during the course of the investigation shall be retained in a secure and confidential manner in the Office of the VPR for at least seven years past the submission of the PIC's final report. The records may be kept in an appropriate electronic format. If the scholarly activity in question is a funded effort, the records shall be retained for seven years past the submission of the principal investigator's final project report to the sponsoring agency (or seven years past the submission of the PIC's final report, whichever is greater). In the event that legal action arises from the allegation, the records shall be retained until the matter is resolved (or seven years past the submission of the principal investigator's final project report to the sponsoring agency, or seven years past the submission of the PIC's final report to the Office of the VPR, whichever is greater). In addition, a copy of the final report shall be sent to sponsoring agencies if relevant.

9.5.2   A draft report of the findings of the PIC shall be given to the subject of the complaint and the complainant in a timely way, so that reasonable opportunity for reaction to and comment on the draft is provided to the subject. This commentary will become part of the final report of the PIC to the VPR. The report should contain sufficient detail to enable an assessment of the decision as to whether or not misconduct occurred. This document should:

9.5.2.1   state the allegation in full

9.5.2.2   describe the facts of the case as found during the investigation

9.5.2.3   carefully detail the steps taken to collect data, materials, and any other physical evidence relevant to the case

9.5.2.4   summarize the interviews conducted

9.5.2.5   clearly state the conclusions reached and the reasons for these findings, and

9.5.2.6   indicate the Committee's decision as to whether or not misconduct occurred.

9.5.3   The report should provide sufficient information to permit the appropriate University official(s) to determine what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken. If it chooses to do so, the PIC may include as part of its report a set of recommended sanctions to be applied, but these are not binding.

10.   Administration of sanction(s)

10.1   If the investigation stage determines that no misconduct has occurred, then the VPR should promptly write a letter of exoneration to the subject, and the matter will be considered officially closed. This letter of exoneration shall be included with the final report of the PIC. The complainant shall be notified of this decision and provided with a summary of the final report from the PIC. Notification of this decision shall be sent to any sponsoring agencies, as appropriate, along with a copy of the letter of exoneration. In addition, action may be taken by the University to help maintain or restore the reputation of any parties involved in the case. This process should be coordinated through the Office of the VPR.

10.2   If there is suspicion on the part of the PIC that the allegation of misconduct in scholarly activity was not made in good faith, inquiry shall be initiated by the University. Improper behavior of this type falls under the purview of the more general USNH (USY V.C) and UNH (UNH V.D) policies regarding personal and professional conduct, and the relevant procedures will apply.

10.3   If the investigation stage determines that misconduct in scholarly activity has occurred, sanctions may be administered as appropriate and consistent with USNH and UNH policies on disciplinary action. These sanctions range from oral warning, to the issuance of official letters of reprimand, up to and including suspension without pay, termination of employment or dismissal from the University. The final report of the PIC shall be forwarded to the appropriate staff, faculty, and/or University official(s)6 who will determine what disciplinary action is to be taken. In determining disciplinary action, the appropriate staff, faculty, and/or University official(s) should consult with the chair of the PIC and the VPR. In the case of faculty, any action with regards to suspension without pay or dismissal from the University must respect the relevant terms and conditions as set forth in the current collective bargaining agreement. Cases involving either graduate or undergraduate students will also be subject to the policies covering the student judicial process.

10.4   The officials charged above with determining disciplinary action may decide in consultation with the Chair of the PIC and the VPR that in order to ensure the integrity of UNH as a seat of higher learning and scholarly inquiry, additional measures must be taken beyond the application of internal University disciplinary action. Such measures may include public disclosure that misconduct has taken place, retraction of articles or other publications pertaining to the activity in which misconduct occurred, and notification to the relevant scholarly community and any sponsoring agencies that results obtained as a result of the activity in which misconduct occurred may be of questionable validity.

10.5   Information about all sanctions that are eventually applied should be appended to the final report of the PIC.

10.6   Finally, sponsoring agencies, such as PHS and NSF, retain the right under their policies to administer additional sanctions beyond those invoked by the University, if the agency finds it necessary.

11.   Grievance procedures

11.1   If the subject of an allegation of misconduct believes that he or she has been judged improperly, grievance procedures may be initiated in accordance with USNH and UNH policies. For a faculty member, these terms are set forth in the current collective bargaining agreement, for a staff member the relevant sections of the USNH policy manual hold, and for a graduate or undergraduate student the current "Student Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities" document should be consulted.

 

*Footnotes

1 Scholarly activity should be interpreted broadly, and includes laboratory and field research, educational innovation projects, theoretical investigations, observational studies, experimentation, research and scholarship in the humanities and artistic and other forms of creative expression.

2 "Preponderance of the evidence" means that quantity and quality of evidence which, when fairly considered, produces the stronger impression, and has the greater weight, and is more convincing as to its truth than the evidence in opposition. Note: This standard of proof is consistent with that applied by federal funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation.

3 In compliance with current policies in effect at federal funding agencies such as the NSF and the PHS verbally communicated and/or unsigned allegations are covered by this policy and procedures.

4 The appropriate staff, faculty, or University official is the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, if the subject of the allegation is an administrator; the Chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Professional Standards, if the subject of the allegation is a faculty member; the Chair of either the Operating Staff (OS) Council or the Professional, Administrative, and Technical (PAT) Staff Council, if the subject is a staff member; the Dean of the Graduate School, if the subject is a graduate student; or the Vice President for Student and Academic Services, if the subject is an undergraduate student.

5 In this document the term conflict of interest shall mean having a personal and/or professional affiliation or a financial connection to the subject of the allegation, or to the work in question. Some examples of problem situations are:

  • having a family relationship with the subject of the allegation;
  • having a professional relationship with the subject of the allegation, e.g., as a consultant or collaborator on the work on which misconduct has been alleged;
  • having a known personal relationship with the subject of the allegation, either as close friends or open antagonists;
  • having collaborated recently on a project related to the work on which misconduct has been alleged.

If there is a question as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists, the VPR should be consulted.

6 For cases involving administrators, the appropriate University official is the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. In the case of a faculty member, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chair of the Professional Standards Committee will determine disciplinary action. For a staff member, the Vice President for Finance and Administration and the relevant Chair of the PAT or OS Council will determine disciplinary action. If a graduate student is involved, the appropriate University and faculty officials are the Dean of the Graduate School and the Department Chair of the subject. For a case involving an undergraduate student, the Vice President for Student and Academic Services will determine disciplinary action. (If the student is an undeclared major, the student's College Dean will serve.)

 


This page last updated May 16, 2011. For information on the adoption and effective dates of policies please see explanation on the OLPM Main Menu.



UNH Table of Contents | Academic Policies Table of Contents | Search the OLPM