Office of the VP for Research

Title:	Sponsored Award Closeout
Policy Owner:	Office of the Vice President for Research, Sponsored Program Services
Applies to:	All Faculty, Staff, and Students
Campus Applicability:	All campuses
Effective Date:	November 25, 2019
For More Information, Contact	Office of the Vice President for Research, Sponsored Program Services
Contact Information:	860-486-3622 (Storrs and regional campuses) 860-679-4040 (UConn Health)
Official Website:	https://ovpr.uconn.edu (Storrs and regional campuses) https://ovpr.uchc.edu (UConn Health)

Governing and Cost Accounting Standards

Posted on November 14, 2019July 20, 2025 by

Title:	Governing and Cost Accounting Standards
Policy Owner:	Office of the Vice President for Research, Sponsored Program Services
Applies to:	All Faculty, Staff, and Students
Campus Applicability:	All campuses
Effective Date:	November 18, 2019
For More Information, Contact	Office of the Vice President for Research, Sponsored Program Services
Contact Information:	860-486-3622 (Storrs and regional campuses) 860-679-4040 (UConn Health)
Official Website:	https://ovpr.uconn.edu (Storrs and regional campuses) https://ovpr.uchc.edu (UConn Health)

REASON FOR POLICY

To confirm sponsored programs are administered in accordance with award requirements such as the Uniform Guidance, Cost Accounting Standards for Educational Institutions, Federal Acquisition Regulations, Federal and State regulations, and sponsor and university policies.

APPLIES TO

All faculty, staff, and students involved in the administration of sponsored programs at the University of Connecticut, regional campuses, and UConn Health (“University”).

POLICY STATEMENT

This policy establishes the terms and conditions that govern sponsored projects. The University will be responsible for determining the appropriate costing treatment and for the maintenance of the CAS Disclosure Statement (DS-2) as prescribed in 2 C.F.R. §200.419.

In accepting a sponsored program, the Institution and Principal Investigator(s) assume responsibility for fulfilling the requirements of the program. These requirements may be specifically contained in the agreement or they may be incorporated by reference to guidelines issued by the sponsor in special publications or directives.

Cost accounting and financial compliance for federally funded sponsored projects at the University is dictated by various Federal Office of Management and Budget Circulars and agency regulations.

The following is a brief explanation of the major bodies of federal and agency regulations that address financial compliance related to sponsored programs:

Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200)

The Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (“Uniform Guidance”) establishes a basis for policy in the management of federally sponsored programs.

Specifically, the Uniform Guidance sets forth the uniform administrative requirements for grant and cooperative agreements, including the requirements for Federal awarding agency management of Federal grant programs before the Federal award has been made, and the requirements Federal awarding agencies may impose on non-Federal entities in the Federal Award. The Uniform Guidance also establishes the principles for determining the allowable costs incurred by non-Federal entities under Federal awards. Finally, the Uniform Guidance sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity among Federal agencies for the audit of non-Federal entities expending Federal awards.

Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) (48 CFR)
Establishes the policies, procedures, and requirements of Federal contracts.

Cost Accounting Standards (48 CFR 9905)

Standards designed to ensure uniformity and consistency in the measurement, assignment and allocation of costs to contracts with the US Federal Government, and include:

CAS 501 – Consistency in Estimating, Accumulating and Reporting Costs

University will ensure compliance by employing consistent practices when developing budgets for proposals and in accounting and reporting costs for program expenses (in accordance with Federal and State rules and regulations and University policy).

CAS 502 – Consistency in Allocating Costs Incurred for the Same Purpose

Costs incurred for the same purpose, in similar circumstances, must be given consistent treatment in the accounting system. All costs must be charged consistently as either a direct cost or as part of the federally negotiated Facilities & Administrative (F&A) cost structure.

CAS 505 – Accounting for Unallowable Costs

Unallowable costs (as defined by federal, state or university regulation or policy) must be identified and excluded from any billing, claim, or proposal submitted to the Federal government.

CAS 506 – Cost Accounting Period

The University Fiscal Year (July 1 – June 30) will be used as the accounting period regardless of the sponsor’s accounting period.

Federal Sponsor Guidelines
While the Uniform Guidance establishes the principles for sponsored program management, each federal agency may differ in policy application. Additionally, terms and conditions specific to an award may apply.

Non-Federal Sponsor Guidelines
The specific award agreement, together with University policy, usually guides the project’s conduct. State agencies, foundations, and private businesses may also publish their own funding guidelines and requirements.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Principal Investigator

Responsible for ensuring appropriateness of all charges on sponsored projects. Ensure the consistent application of direct costing practices to sponsored projects.

Department or Shared Services Fiscal Officer/ Administrator

Assists the Principal Investigator in ensuring consistent application of costing practices, record keeping and other financial and administrative requirements.

Sponsored Program Services

Develop and maintain policies and procedures in accordance with Federal regulations. Provide training and guidance to Principal Investigators and staff. In accordance with policy and procedure, review transactions for appropriateness under Federal and institutional guidelines.

Office of Cost Analysis (Storrs and regional campuses) / Research Finance (UConn Health)

Maintain and file CAS Disclosure Statement (DS-2) in accordance with §200.419 identifying accounting practices, policies, and procedures for assigning costs to federally sponsored programs, and to attest to the consistent treatment of those practices.

ENFORCEMENT

Violations of this policy may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University Laws and By-Laws, General Rules of Conduct for all University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements, and the University of Connecticut Student Code.

PROCEDURES/FORMS/OTHER POLICY

UConn Storrs and Regional Campuses:

Disclosure Statement (DS-2)

Cost Accounting Disclosure-1 Direct/Indirect

UConn Health:

Policy on Sponsored Project Expenditures: Approval and Monitoring

UCH Policy 2002-05: Unallowable Costs/Administrative Costs

Disclosure Statement (DS-2)

POLICY HISTORY

Policy created: Approved by the President’s Cabinet on 09/12/2019. This is a new University wide policy to better document practices at Storrs and regional campuses and combines two previous policies at UConn Health.

History:

Miscellaneous guidance at Storrs and regional campuses

UCH Policy 2002-12, “Governing Standards”, 2/25/2002

UCH Policy 2002-37, “Cost Accounting Standards”, 2/25/2002

ClinicalTrials.gov

Posted on May 30, 2018February 2, 2024 by Laurie Neal

Title:	ClinicalTrials.gov
Policy Owner:	Research Compliance Services, Office of the Vice President for Research
Applies to:	Employees, Faculty, Students, Other
Campus Applicability:	All Campuses
Effective Date:	May 25, 2018
For More Information, Contact	Office of the Vice President for Research
Contact Information:	(860) 486-3001
Official Website:	http://research.uchc.edu/

REASON FOR POLICY

The purpose of this policy is to ensure investigators at the University comply with the requirements for registering and reporting results of clinical trials at ClinicalTrials.gov.

The University is committed to the mission of public availability of clinical trial information and to complying with the related requirements of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and other federal agencies and departments for using ClinicalTrials.gov. Investigators for certain clinical trials are required to register and report results at ClinicalTrials.gov for certain clinical trials, including those involving the FDA, NIH, and CMS. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) also imposes a similar requirement as a condition for seeking publication in participating journals.

APPLIES TO

All University faculty, employees, students, postdoctoral fellows, residents and other trainees, and agents who supervise or conduct clinical trials needing to be registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

POLICY STATEMENT

It is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator (or other equivalent individual) supervising or conducting a clinical trial that must be registered at ClinicalTrials.gov to ensure that the registration, results reporting, related consent form and other applicable requirements are met with the required timeframes. Any failure to fulfill these requirements may result in limitations on publications or grant submissions or other sanctions.

The University’s Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) Administrator within Research Compliance Services is available to provide assistance in navigating the PRS system, administering requests by ClinicalTrials.gov, and with compliance questions related to these requirements.

ENFORCEMENT

Violations of this policy may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University By-Laws, General Rules of Conduct for All University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements, the University of Connecticut Student Code, and other applicable University Policies.

Authority

42 CFR part 11 (FDA)

NIH Policy on the Dissemination of NIH-Funded Clinical Trial Information (NIH)

Medicare Clinical Trial Policies (CMS)

Clinical Trials (ICMJE)

POLICY HISTORY

Adopted: 5/25/2018 (Approved by President’s Cabinet)

Export Control and Economic Sanctions Policy

Posted on December 16, 2015November 19, 2025 by Laurie Neal

Title:	Export Control and Economic Sanctions Policy
Policy Owner:	Office of the Vice President for Research
Applies to:	Workforce Members, Students, Others
Campus Applicability:	All Campuses
Approval Date:	November 19, 2025
Effective Date:	November 19, 2025
For More Information, Contact	Chief Research Security Officer, Research Security
Contact Information:	exportcontrol@uconn.edu, or (860) 486-3619
Official Website:	https://ovpr.uconn.edu/services/research-security/export-control/

BACKGROUND

Export control and economic sanctions regulations aim to protect the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States. Export control regulations govern how certain information, technologies, and commodities can be transmitted overseas or to a foreign national on U.S. soil. Economic sanctions regulations restrict transactions with certain countries, institutions, and individuals. The scope of these regulations is broad: they cover exports in virtually all fields of science, engineering, and technology, apply to research activities regardless of the source of funding, and impose restrictions on activities by U.S. persons that occur outside the United States. These laws are collectively referred to as “Export Control Laws.” The University of Connecticut (UConn) encourages and supports open research and the free exchange of ideas. Although most university activities and research are exempt from export control laws, UConn engages in some activities, research, and the development of new technologies that are subject to Export Control Laws. Failure to comply with these laws can have serious consequences, both for the institution and for the individual researcher.

PURPOSE

To define the standards and responsibilities for complying with U.S. Export Control Laws and embargo regulations in all university activities, including research, instruction, travel, and the handling of controlled materials and information.

DEFINITIONS

Export Control Laws: Laws and regulations implemented by the U.S. Department of Commerce through its Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the U.S. Department of State through its International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), as well as embargo regulations imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department through its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to all workforce members, students, and all other individuals working on all University campuses, including UConn Health.

POLICY STATEMENT

UConn is committed to compliance with Export Control Laws.

The Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) is the designated authority charged with compliance oversight of the U.S. export control and economic sanctions requirements for UConn and has final authority on such matters.

Individuals acting on behalf of the University, including faculty, staff and students, are responsible for complying with applicable Export Control Laws, including requirements related to international travel, the proper handling, transfer, access, storage, control, and dissemination of export controlled hardware, software, information, technology, and technical data to destinations and persons outside of the U.S., as well as in some cases, to foreign nationals at the university engaging in instruction, conducting research, or providing service activities.

The University typically conducts fundamental research in basic and applied science or engineering, which is widely and openly published and made available to the scientific and academic community. This allows for the Fundamental Research Exclusion, which means the research results are exempt from Export Control Laws. But Export Control Laws could apply if the research is not considered fundamental research, or if the research has restrictions on publication, foreign national participation, or restricted access to/disclosure of research results. Please contact the Export Control Office if you have any questions on whether Export Control Laws apply to your particular activity.

The University will not permit or support travel to any country subject to a comprehensive U.S. Government embargo (as set forth in the UConn International Travel procedure), unless the travel falls within the scope of a license or exception granted by law and is reviewed and receives written approval in advance by the OVPR Export Control Office.

ENFORCEMENT

Violations of this policy and any related procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University By-Laws, General Rules of Conduct for All University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements, and the University of Connecticut Student Code.

The civil and criminal penalties associated with violating Export Control Laws can be severe, ranging from administrative sanctions including loss of research funding, to monetary penalties, and imprisonment.

PROCEDURES

Export control compliance protocols and procedures are available online at: Export Control | Office of the Vice President for Research

POLICY HISTORY

Policy created: 12/14/2014 (Approved by the Vice President for Research)

Revisions:
1/12/2016 (Approved and Adopted by the UConn Health Policy Committee)
7/3/2018 (Non-Substantive edits per the Office of General Counsel)
9/18/2018 (Non-Substantive edits per the Office of General Counsel)
11/17/2025 (Approved by the Senior Policy Council and President)

Intellectual Property and Commercialization Policy

Posted on October 8, 2015September 29, 2025 by Laurie Neal

Title:	Intellectual Property and Commercialization Policy
Policy Owner:	Office of the Vice President for Research
Applies to:	Faculty, Staff, Students
Campus Applicability:	Storrs and Regional Campuses and UConn Health
Effective Date:	September 30, 2015
For More Information, Contact	Office of the Vice President for Research
Contact Information:	860-486-3619
Official Website:	http://research.uconn.edu/

Reason for Policy: The University encourages the development and commercialization of intellectual property invented, created and developed by faculty, students and staff. Intellectual property generally consists of patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. This policy sets out the University’s policies with respect to such intellectual property, including its ownership, protection and commercialization. The policy is organized as follows: (1) Ownership and Protection of Intellectual Property, (2) Commercialization of Intellectual Property, (3) Income Derived from Intellectual Property, (4) Licensing and New Company Formation, (5) Dealing with Outside Parties, (6) Other Considerations, (7) Exceptions, (8) Enforcement, and (9) Related Policies and Procedures. No policy of this nature can cover every possible scenario but it seeks to provide clarity on intellectual property and commercialization issues. The Office of the Vice President for Research (“OVPR”) is the entity at the University primarily responsible for implementing and interpreting this Intellectual Property and Commercialization Policy, and is ready to work with faculty, staff and students to explain these policies and make determinations in specific cases.

Applies to: Faculty, staff and students at the Storrs and Regional Campuses and UConn Health

1. Ownership and Protection of Intellectual Property

A. Inventions and Patents. Under Connecticut state law, the University owns all inventions created by employees in the performance of employment with the University or created with University resources or funds administered by the University (“University Inventions”). An issued patent is a limited grant from the federal government or a foreign government giving the owner of the patent the right to exclude others from practicing the inventions claimed in the patent.

B. Copyrights. Copyright protection extends to any original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. A copyright owner possesses a series of exclusive rights, including the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies of the work, perform the work (in some cases) and display the work (in some cases). The University does not claim any product of authorship, unless a contract to the contrary modifies this general rule. If a contract grants ownership of the copyrighted work to an industry sponsor or other outside entity, an employee may be required to acknowledge the grant of ownership as a condition of working on such contract. If a contract grants ownership of the copyrighted work to the University, the work will be considered a “University Copyright.” In addition, the AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement and other relevant collective bargaining agreements may contain provisions that allocate copyright ownership and other rights between faculty, staff and the University.

C. Trademarks. A trademark is a word, name, symbol or design that helps consumers identify and distinguish the source of a product from the products of others. Similarly, a service mark is a word, name, symbol or design used by a person providing services to help the public identify and distinguish the source of the services from the service of others. A trade name is a name used to identify a business. The University owns all rights, title and interest in all trademarks, service marks, trade names and other brand designations that relate to University Intellectual Property (as defined below) or to any University-related program of education, service, public relations, research or training (“University Trademarks”). University Trademarks may be used only with the express written permission of the University. Except as stated in Section 3(C), this Policy does not cover the use or licensing of University Trademarks; a link to the University’s trademark licensing procedures can be found in the “Related Policies” section of this Policy.

D. Trade Secrets. A trade secret is any formula, pattern, device, method, know how or compilation of information that derives independent economic value from not being known by others, and is the subject of efforts by the owner to maintain its secrecy. The University maintains a number of trade secrets, including but not limited to, unpublished grant proposals, invention disclosures and scientific data for which the University has not applied for patent protection (“University Trade Secrets”). The University will also agree on a limited basis to maintain the trade secrets of its industry partners.

E. University Intellectual Property or UIP. For the purposes of this Policy, University Inventions, University Copyrights and University Trade Secrets are referred to as “University Intellectual Property” or “UIP.” As noted above, University Trademarks are covered by a separate policy.

2. Commercialization

A. Industry Sponsored Research. The University is committed to developing industry collaborations and supporting research and development. The University understands that industry partners have diverse and unique needs, and is committed to providing contract terms and IP rights that meet these needs. Faculty members intending to work with industry partners should contact the OVPR so that different options can be discussed. The University offers many innovative intellectual property ownership models, including granting exclusive and non-exclusive licenses, which provide broad benefits to both industry and the University.

B. Government Sponsored Research. UIP arising from research funded by the US government or other funding agency will be controlled by the terms of the grant or contract and applicable laws, including the Bayh-Dole Act. Government-funded UIP will usually be owned by the University, subject to certain rights retained by the government.

C. Student Intellectual Property. Students will own the intellectual property that they invent, create and develop, including work created for a class, unless the student is (1) working on a University research grant or other sponsored research, (2) working for the University as an employee, or (3) working under a contract that stipulates otherwise. In these cases, the University will own the intellectual property.

D. Disclosure of Inventions. All faculty, employees (including students who are working for the University) and students (to the extent the student is working under a research grant, sponsored research or other governing contract) must disclose promptly any potentially patentable invention to the OVPR, and execute documents necessary for invention evaluation, patent prosecution or protection of University Patents. The disclosure should be made as soon as a faculty, employee or student becomes aware that their research or work has resulted in a patentable invention. OVPR will provide a preliminary evaluation of the patentable invention to the inventor within three months of disclosure, and will also provide periodic updates to inventor on the development and commercialization of the invention.

E. Determining Ownership and Protecting Intellectual Property. The OVPR, in consultation with the faculty member, staff, student and industry partner (if applicable), will determine the ownership of all inventions and trade secrets, whether a copyrighted work is a University Copyright, and whether to seek patent or copyright protection for the intellectual property.

3. Income Derived from Intellectual Property

A. Inventions. Under Connecticut state law and the by-laws of the University, the net revenue derived from licensing or income from the assignment or sale of University Inventions will be shared with employee inventors. Although current state law only requires the University to distribute 20% of the net revenues to inventors, the Board of Trustees has approved the distribution of net revenue as follows: 33.3% to the inventors on the patent, 33.3% to their department and 33.3% to the University. Net revenue is defined as the gross proceeds derived from assigning or licensing the University Invention, less costs and expenses reasonably allocated to the University Invention. In addition, the department’s share is further divided among the dean, the department head and the faculty member. The portion of revenue distributed to the University will be invested in research related activities and patent protection. If a faculty member, student or staff member is an inventor and leaves the University, he or she will remain entitled to the inventor’s share of the revenue. In some prior cases, the University has made distributions using different allocations, and may in the future enter into mutually agreed distributions that differ from the above formula.

B. University Copyrights. Net revenue derived from licensing of University Copyrights is property of the University, and the distribution of such revenue will be determined on a case by case basis, but may be distributed in a similar manner to the distribution for inventions as described above.

C. University Trademarks. The University generally retains all income derived from licensing of University Trademarks.

4. Licensing and New Company Formation

A. Licensing of Intellectual Property. The OVPR seeks to identify existing businesses that can further develop and commercialize the University Intellectual Property and bring a reasonable financial return to the University. Income derived from OVPR’s licensing activities is governed by Section 3 above.

B. New Company Formation. In cases where the faculty inventor may wish to form a new company based on the University Invention (hereinafter a “Faculty Startup or “Startup”), the University will require that the following conditions be satisfied before granting a license to University Intellectual Property to the Startup: (1) the faculty member may be involved with the Startup as a consultant or scientific advisor, but may not take on an operational role that interferes with her or his duties as a faculty member, (2) the Startup must demonstrate willingness and commitment to identify and engage individuals with reasonable and relevant experience to serve as the operating officer of the Startup, and (3) the Startup should develop a business plan and a fundraising plan. As part of granting the license to the Startup, the Startup will provide consideration to the University, which could include a reasonable equity stake, a reasonable royalty, as well as assuming the costs of intellectual property protection. Income earned by University from a Startup license or equity ownership is governed by Section 3 above.

C. Additional Considerations for Faculty Affiliated Companies. The following additional considerations apply to Startups:

(1) A faculty lab may collaborate or subcontract with a Startup only if an appropriate agreement is negotiated with the OVPR. The contract must contain a scope of work and clearly define responsibilities between the Startup and the faculty lab. The agreement will be governed by the applicable University policies, including this IP and Commercialization Policy.

(2) The faculty member may not represent the University in any negotiation or decision involving a Startup.

(3) The faculty member individually, and the Startup, must maintain practices that ensure that University material, data and intellectual property that are not licensed to the Startup are separated from and not used inappropriately by the Startup.

(4) The faculty member may not use space in an academic lab, or other University or state resources, including the University’s purchasing authority, for the benefit of a Startup unless (a) prior written approval has been granted by the appropriate department head or dean, and (b) a written agreement is in place with the University authorizing such use and agreeing to reimburse the University for such use.

(5) A faculty member that works on a Startup must fully comply with the policies on “Consulting for Faculty and Members of the Faculty Bargaining Unit” and “Financial Conflict of Interest in Research” and any other similar or successor policies on the same subject. These policies are designed to ensure that a faculty member’s relationship with a Startup does not create a real or perceived conflict of interest, and that the faculty member and University have agreed on the scope of permissible Startup activities.

(6) Startups may not compete with the University for research grants that could appropriately be conducted in the faculty member’s lab (i.e., grants for basic research).

D. Employment of Students Working at Startups. Faculty associated with a Startup may not unduly influence a student to accept employment. The employment of students at a Startup is governed by a separate University policy, namely “Use of Students in Outside Employment.” Under this policy, the faculty member must obtain written approval from the department head or dean prior to employing a student at a Startup, and the student may seek recourse through the Provost to address any grievances that may arise during the term of employment.

The University requires that each student receive a written offer of employment with a specific scope of work or job description, the rate of compensation and the expected hours of work. In addition, the student should receive a fair market value rate of pay.

E. Licensing Back of University Intellectual Property. If the University does not believe that it can successfully commercialize a University Invention, and if the faculty member is not interested in founding a Startup, the University will offer the inventor a license of the University Invention (such license referred to as a “license back”). In addition, the inventor may request a license back from OVPR at any time. OVPR is not required to grant a license back but will respond to any request within three months. If the University elects to license back the University Invention to the inventor, the inventor, as licensee, will assume obligations related to patent expenses and commercialization and will agree to pay a portion of the gross revenue that the inventor receives through his or her commercialization efforts. In addition, the inventor will not be entitled to the net revenue payments described in Section 3 of this policy.

5. Dealings with Outside Parties

A. Sponsored Research. All sponsored research agreements are negotiated and managed by the OVPR. Individual faculty members, departments, centers and other units of the University must work through the OVPR on such agreements.

B. Consulting. University faculty are encouraged to consult with industry, but must comply with all procedures set forth in “Consulting for Faculty and Members of the Faculty Bargaining Unit.” These policies apply even if the faculty member is consulting for a Startup, including a Startup with which that individual faculty member is affiliated.

Faculty members are required to ensure that the intellectual property provisions of any consulting agreements with industry do not conflict with the faculty member’s obligations to the University.

C. Use of Non-Disclosure Agreements. Non-public information related to University Intellectual Property should not be disclosed to outside parties unless there is in place a fully executed Non-Disclosure Agreement negotiated by OVPR and approved by University counsel.

D. Tangible Property. Tangible property, including but not limited to software, devices, designs, models, cell lines, plans, seeds, antibodies, compounds and formulations that are University property, may not be transferred outside of the University unless there is in place a fully executed Material Transfer Agreement negotiated by OVPR and approved by University counsel.

6. Other Considerations

A. Publication. Inventors should be aware that publication of research data and findings can jeopardize intellectual property rights for the University and the faculty member. When the University enters into industry sponsored research agreements, it will retain the right to publish all research results generated by faculty and students. The University may agree to delay the publication of research results that arise from industry sponsored research for a reasonable period of time to allow the sponsor to review the publication in order to determine if any confidential information should be removed or if a patent application should be filed.

B. Affiliates and Intellectual Property. In some limited cases, the University has affiliation agreements with other organizations (e.g. hospitals), and these agreements may grant the University additional intellectual property rights. For example, if a student is receiving a stipend from the University through an affiliate organization, the University will assert ownership of intellectual property created by the student.

C. Open Source Software Distribution. In those instances in which the University has an ownership interest in software, faculty and sponsors of research may request that the University distribute or otherwise make available software pursuant to an open source license. The faculty member should consult with OVPR to determine if such distribution is in the best interests of the University.

D. Signing of Agreements. Sponsored Research Agreements, Intellectual Property Licenses, Confidential Disclosure Agreements, Material Transfer Agreements and other related agreements that obligate the University may only be signed by an authorized University signatory. A full list of authorized signatories is set forth in the President’s Resolution Delegating Signing Authority (the website link is provided at end of this Policy).

Deans, Faculty and Department heads are not authorized under the President’s Resolution to sign agreements covered by this Policy.

E. Disagreements Related to Inventions. The University By-Laws establish procedures to follow in the event of a disagreement related to inventions.

7. Exceptions to This Policy

Exceptions to this Intellectual Property and Commercialization Policy may be approved by the OVPR, in consultation with the applicable University department, and faculty members, in its sole discretion. The Office of Clinical and Translation Research may approve changes to clinical trial agreements.

8. Enforcement

9. Related Policies, Procedures and Board Resolutions

This policy replaces “Policy Regarding Research Collaborations with Industrial Partners and Technology Transfer”

The following are links to related policies, procedures and board resolutions, sorted by campus applicability.

All University Campuses

“Consulting for Faculty and Members of the Faculty Bargaining Unit”

“Consulting by Faculty” website

University Brand Partnerships and Trademarks

Specific to Storrs and Storrs-based Regional Campuses

“Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research”

“Use of Students for External Employment”

“Board of Trustees Resolution Delegating Signing Authority”

Specific to UConn Health

Further Sub-Delegations of Contract Approval and Signature Authority at OVPR

Data Ownership

Individual Financial Conflict of Interest in Research

If any of the above policies are amended or new relevant policies adopted, these amended or new policies will apply as of their effective date.

Policy approved by the President’s Cabinet.

Adopted by the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees on September 30, 2015 and effective as of September 30, 2015.

Fixed Price Residual Policy

Posted on August 27, 2015July 16, 2019 by Laurie Neal

Title:	Fixed Price Residual Policy
Policy Owner:	Office of the Vice President for Research, Sponsored Program Services
Applies to:	Faculty and staff conducting sponsored program activity at Storrs and the regional campuses
Campus Applicability:	All campuses except for UConn Health
Effective Date:	July 7, 2015
For More Information, Contact	Offices of the Vice President for Research and Sponsored Program Services
Contact Information:	(860) 486-3622
Official Website:	http://research.uconn.edu

REASON FOR POLICY

To establish guidelines for the disposition of residual balances remaining in sponsored project accounts for fixed price contracts awarded to the University.

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to faculty and staff at the Storrs and regional campuses who are working with sponsored program grants and contracts.

DEFINITIONS

Fixed Price Contract: An agreement in which the University guarantees to deliver a product or perform a service for a set (fixed) price agreed upon in advance and payable regardless of actual costs.

Residual Balance: An unobligated, unspent balance remaining in a fixed price sponsored project account after all work has been completed and all deliverables have been met.

POLICY STATEMENT

Residual fund balances that are under 15% of the direct cost budget of a fixed price sponsored program restricted project account will be transferred to an unrestricted account for use by the PI at his/her discretion subject to the following conditions:

The project budget represented a good faith and realistic estimate of the cost to perform the work.
The PI confirms in writing that all project-related costs have been charged to the project account and that all deliverables have been met.

Direct cost balances over the first 15% will be evaluated by the Dean of the school/college to determine their disposition.

ENFORCEMENT

PROCEDURES

SPS has established operating procedures designed to ensure compliance with this policy. This includes working with the PI and department personnel during the closeout process to ensure all project-related costs have been charged to the restricted account, and all deliverables have been met.

See Fixed Price Residual on the Award section of the OVPR website.

POLICY HISTORY

Policy created: 3/1/2013

Revised: 7/7/2015 (Approved by the Vice President for Research)

Policy on Alleged Misconduct in Research

Posted on June 6, 2014January 12, 2026 by Laurie Neal

Title:	Policy on Alleged Misconduct in Research
Policy Owner:	Office of the Vice President for Research
Applies to:	Workforce Members
Campus Applicability:	All Campuses
Approval Date:	November 19, 2025
Effective Date:	January 1, 2026
For More Information, Contact	Director, Financial Conflicts of Interest and Research Integrity
Contact Information:	Meg.Johnson@uconn.edu
Official Website:	https://ovpr.uconn.edu/ https://ovpr.uchc.edu/

BACKGROUND

The University of Connecticut, including its Regional Campuses and its academic medical center UConn Health (together, the “Institution”), is committed to fostering an environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, encourages reporting of any research-related concerns, protects those who report such concerns in Good Faith, and promptly and effectively addresses any Allegations or credible evidence of Research Misconduct. This policy is made available by the Institution to advise the public of this commitment and Workforce Members of associated obligations.

PURPOSE

This Policy is intended to comply with applicable regulations[1] and policy requirements for addressing Research Misconduct.

APPLIES TO

This Policy applies to all Workforce Members, regardless of funding or funding source, involved in research, training, or activities related to research, such as, but not limited to, the operation of tissue and data banks and the dissemination of research information proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, or any Research Record generated from that research, which is conducted using the facilities, resources, or funds of the Institution. This Policy applies to Allegations reported to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) on or after the Effective Date.

DEFINITIONS

Accepted practices of the relevant research community: This term means those practices established by applicable regulation and funding agencies, as well as commonly accepted professional codes or norms within the overarching community of researchers and institutions that apply for and receive such research awards.

Allegation: Allegation means a disclosure of possible Research Misconduct through any means of communication and brought directly to the attention of the Research Integrity Officer.

Assessment: Assessment means a consideration of whether an Allegation of Research Misconduct appears to fall within the definition of Research Misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that readily available potential evidence of Research Misconduct relevant to the Allegation may be identified to move to an Inquiry.

Committee or Consortium (Committee): For purposes of this Policy, a Committee is a group of individuals with appropriate expertise appointed by the RIO to conduct Research Misconduct Proceedings consistent with the applicable regulation and funding agency requirements. The Committee participates in recorded interviews of each Respondent, Complainant, Witnesses, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation, pursues leads, examines records and evidence and determines, when conducting an Inquiry, whether an Investigation is warranted; and when conducting an Investigation, advises on whether the Respondent(s) engaged in Research Misconduct. Committee or Consortium members may serve for more than one Inquiry or Investigation and/or in cases with multiple Respondents. Committee members may also serve for both the Inquiry and the Investigation.

Complainant: Complainant means an individual who in Good Faith makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Day: Day, as applied to this Policy, means calendar day unless otherwise specified. If a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.

Evidence: Evidence means anything offered or obtained during a Research Misconduct Proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. Evidence includes documents, whether in hard copy or electronic form, information, tangible items, and testimony.

Fabrication: Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification: Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.

Good Faith:

(a) Good Faith as applied to a Complainant or Witness means having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s Allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the Complainant or Witness at the time. An Allegation or cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding is not in Good Faith if made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for information that would negate the Allegation or testimony.

(b) Good Faith as applied to an Institutional or Committee member means cooperating with the Research Misconduct Proceeding by impartially carrying out the duties assigned for the purpose of helping an Institution meet its responsibilities. An Institutional or Committee member does not act in Good Faith if their acts or omissions during the Research Misconduct Proceedings are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Inquiry: Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding as described in this Policy.

Institutional Certifying Official: Institutional Certifying Official (ICO) means the Institutional official who assures, on behalf of the Institution, that the Institution has written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct and complies with its own policies and procedures. The Institutional Certifying Official is also responsible for ensuring the submission and certifying the content of the Institution's annual report as required by applicable law or policy.

Institutional Deciding Official: Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) means the Institutional official who evaluates whether the burden of proof necessary for an Investigation Committee’s determination has met the burden of proof, gives due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion from Respondent, and makes final determinations on Allegations of Research Misconduct and any Institutional actions. The Research Integrity Officer cannot also serve as the IDO.

Institutional Record: The Institutional Record consists of the records that were compiled or generated during the Research Misconduct Proceeding, except records the Institution did not rely on, and includes:

A single index listing all Research Records and evidence;
All records considered or relied on during the Investigation;
A general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
Documentation of the Assessment;
The Inquiry Report;
The Investigation Report;
The Institutional Deciding Official’s final decision; and
Any information the Respondent provided to the Institution in connection with the Investigation.

Intentionally: To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.

Interview: As designated by the RIO or the Investigation or Inquiry Committee Chair, Interview during the Research Misconduct process shall mean a discussion with a Respondent, Complainant or Witness by the convened Investigation or Inquiry Committee.

Investigation: Investigation means a formal examination and evaluation of relevant facts to determine whether Research Misconduct has taken place or, if Research Misconduct has already been confirmed, to assess its extent and consequences and determine appropriate action.

Knowingly: To act knowingly means to act with awareness of the act.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit. (a) Plagiarism includes the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs from another’s work that materially misleads the reader regarding the contributions of the author. It does not include the limited use of identical or nearly identical phrases that describe a commonly used methodology. (b) Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or credit disputes, including disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project. Self-plagiarism and authorship disputes do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct.

Preponderance of the evidence: Preponderance of the evidence means proof by evidence that, compared with evidence opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more likely true than not.

Recklessly: To act recklessly means to propose, perform, or review research, or report research results, with indifference to a known risk of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.

Research Integrity Officer: The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to the Institutional official appointed by the Vice President for Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship who is responsible for administering the Institution’s written policies and procedures for addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct in compliance under this Policy and applicable regulations. The RIO cannot also serve as the Institutional Deciding Official.

Research Misconduct: A finding of “Research Misconduct” is required following the material completion of the processes dictated by this Policy if, by a preponderance of the evidence, it is proven that:

Respondent(s) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committed fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results; and
Such conduct represents a significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community.

Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Research Misconduct Proceeding: Research Misconduct Proceeding means any actions related to alleged Research Misconduct taken under this Policy and applicable regulations including Allegation assessments, Inquiries, Investigations, funding agency oversight reviews, and appeals.

Research Record: Research Record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. Data or results may be in physical or electronic form. Examples of items, materials, or information that may be considered part of the Research Record include, but are not limited to, research proposals, raw data, processed data, clinical research records, laboratory records, study records, laboratory notebooks, progress reports, manuscripts, abstracts, theses, records of oral presentations, online content, lab meeting reports, and journal articles.

Respondent: Respondent means the individual against whom an Allegation of Research Misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Retaliation: Retaliation means an adverse action taken against a Complainant, Witness, or Committee member by an Institution or one of its members in response to (a) a Good Faith Allegation of Research Misconduct or (b) Good Faith cooperation with a Research Misconduct Proceeding.

Witnesses: Witnesses are people whom the Institution has reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation. Witnesses provide information for review during Research Misconduct Proceedings.

Workforce Members: Workforce Members are employees, volunteers, trainees, and other persons whose conduct, in the performance of work for the Institution, is under the direct control of the Institution, whether or not they are paid by the Institution.

POLICY STATEMENT

The design, conduct, oversight and reporting of research must be carried out with the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior to ensure that the research has a fundamental value upon which scientific inquiry and discovery are founded. Therefore, Research Misconduct is prohibited. Allegations of Research Misconduct will be addressed in accordance with this policy and applicable regulations.

Workforce members are required to comply with this Policy and applicable regulations, and violations of this Policy and/or applicable regulations may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University By-Laws, General Rules of Conduct for All University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements, and, when applicable, the Student Code of Conduct.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

A. Responsibility to Report Misconduct

Anyone having reason to believe that a Workforce Member or Student has engaged in Research Misconduct has a responsibility to report pertinent facts in accordance with this Policy.

All Allegations must be made in Good Faith, as defined in this Policy. If at any point it is determined that an Allegation of Research Misconduct was not made in Good Faith, this finding will be conveyed in writing to appropriate University offices for review and made a part of any Inquiry or Investigative report.

B. Responsibility to Cooperate with Research Misconduct Proceedings

The Respondent, the Complainant and all Individuals who are identified as having information relevant to the Investigation must cooperate with the Research Misconduct Proceedings in Good Faith and have a reasonable belief in the truth of their testimony, based on the information known to them at the time.

C. Responsibility to Maintain Confidentiality

All individuals involved in the Research Misconduct process have a duty to maintain confidentiality throughout the Research Misconduct Proceedings, only disclosing records and evidence, the identity of research participants and the identity of Respondent(s), Complainant(s) and Witnesses to those who need to know as determined by the Institution consistent with the purpose of a thorough, competent, objective and fair Research Misconduct Proceeding[2], or as permitted or required by applicable law. The Identity of Respondent(s), Complainant(s) and Witness(es) may be shared with other Respondent(s), Complainant(s) and Witness(es) during the Misconduct Process including through unredacted transcripts records.

The foregoing limitation on disclosure of the identity of the Respondent, Complainant, and Witnesses no longer applies once the Institution has made a final determination of whether Research Misconduct occurred. Confidentiality obligations do not prohibit the Institution from managing published data or acknowledging that data may be unreliable.

D. Responsibility to Provide Relevant and/or Requested Records and Information

Complainant(s), Respondent(s), Witnesses and other Workforce Members involved in a Research Misconduct Proceeding have a duty to provide information, Research Records, and other Evidence relevant to the review.

The Respondent has an obligation to provide relevant and/or requested Research Records. Destruction of relevant and/or requested Research Records, or failure to provide relevant and/or requested Research Records, is evidence of Research Misconduct when:

A preponderance of evidence establishes that the Respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the Research Misconduct Allegations; and/or
The Respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.

E. Protection of Complainants, Witnesses, Committee Members and others involved in the Research Misconduct process

The Institution will maintain confidentiality with regard to the identity of Complainants and Witnesses as provided in (C), above. The Institution will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of Committee Members, Complainants, Witnesses and others involved in the Research Misconduct process to protect these individuals from retaliation.

F. Protection of Respondent

The Institution will maintain confidentiality with regard to the identity of Respondent(s) as provided in (C) above. If no finding of Research Misconduct is made against Respondent(s), the Institution will make all reasonable, practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of Respondent(s).

G. Notification to and cooperation with applicable funding agencies or regulatory authorities

Upon request, or as required by applicable law or policy, the Institution will cooperate with applicable agencies or regulatory authorities during any Research Misconduct Proceeding, including providing information related to the Research Misconduct Proceedings and transferring custody or copies of the Institutional Record or any component of it and any sequestered evidence to such agencies or regulatory authorities. The Institution will address deficiencies or additional Allegations in the Institutional Record if directed by the applicable funding agency or regulatory authority.

H. Expertise and Conflicts

The Institution will take reasonable precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the Research Misconduct Proceeding do not have potential, perceived, or actual personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the Complainant(s), Respondent(s) or Witnesses. The Institution will confirm that members of any Committee or any person acting on the Institution’s behalf that conducts Research Misconduct Proceedings, has the relevant scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the Allegation. The Institution will provide the requisite training and ongoing support to persons involved in evaluation of evidence and issues related to the Allegation so that the review is in compliance with applicable regulation and/or Federal policy.

PROCEDURES

Misconduct Proceedings

The stages of handling an Allegation of Research Misconduct include: Routing of the Allegation, Institutional Assessment and, if the Allegation proceeds beyond Institutional Assessment, Sequestration of Research Records and other evidence, Institutional Inquiry, Institutional Investigation, Determination and Completion. The Institution will respond to each Allegation of Research Misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, timely, and fair manner.

I. Routing an Allegation of Research Misconduct

1. Routing of Allegations
Allegations of Research Misconduct may be directed to the RIO or through established reporting procedures, such as the Institution’s ethics hotline. Regardless of the reporting method, all reports or concerns involving actual or potential Research Misconduct must be promptly referred to the RIO.

2. Referral to Other Institutional Entities and Outside Organizations:
The RIO will refer the report of an Allegation to other appropriate offices or officials within the Institution as the RIO believes appropriate, or as required by policy or regulation. The RIO may refer an Allegation to or collaboratively evaluate Allegations with an outside organization when an Allegation involves Respondent(s) that are not Workforce Members or involves activities of a Workforce Member while at an outside organization.If the circumstances described do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the RIO may refer the individual or concerns raised by the Allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for addressing the concerns raised, informing such offices or officials that the concerns do not implicate this Policy.

II. Institutional Assessment and Sequestration

1. Purpose

The Purpose of the Institutional Assessment is for the RIO or designee to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Inquiry. An Inquiry is warranted if the Allegation:

If proven would fall within the definition of Research Misconduct under this Policy; and
is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

2. Timeline for Institutional Assessment

The RIO or designee will conduct the Institutional Assessment as soon as practicably possible after receipt of the Allegation(s).

3. Order of Events

Conduct of the Assessment
The RIO or designee will assess the Allegation(s) based upon readily accessible information relevant to the Allegation.
Conclusion of the Assessment
If the RIO or designee determines that requirements for an Inquiry are met, they will:
- Document the outcome of the Assessment;
- Promptly initiate an Inquiry in accordance with this Policy and applicable regulations, and
- Promptly sequester all Research Records and other evidence in accordance with this Policy and applicable regulations.

If the RIO or designee determines that an Inquiry is not warranted, the RIO will document the outcome of the Assessment and the Institution will keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later review of the reasons why the Institution did not conduct an Inquiry and retain the documentation for the length of time as required by applicable policy or regulation, or at least seven years, whichever is longer, after completion of the Assessment.

4. Sequestration of Research Records and other Evidence

The RIO or designee is required and has the authority to sequester records and other evidence throughout the entirety of the Research Misconduct Proceeding. The RIO or designee will seek the cooperation of the Respondent(s) and potentially Witnesses and others involved in the Research in identifying and sequestering records and evidence.

When Research Records and other evidence are sequestered, the RIO or designee will:

Inventory sequestered records and other evidence,
Sequester the materials in a secure manner, and
Maintain sequestered records in accordance with Institutional Policy and applicable law.

If Research Records or other evidence are located on or encompass scientific instruments shared by multiple users, the Institution may obtain copies of the data or evidence from such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value to the instruments. If not, then the evidence sequestered may include the instruments.

With reasonable notice, the Respondent(s) will be provided copies of, or reasonably supervised access to, the sequestered Research Records.

III. Institutional Inquiry

1. Purpose:

The purpose of an Institutional Inquiry is to conduct an initial review of evidence following the determination of the Institutional Assessment regarding whether the Allegation:

Falls within the definition of Research Misconduct and is within the scope of this Policy; and
Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified.

The Institutional Inquiry only evaluates whether an Investigation is warranted. The Institutional Inquiry does not determine if fabrication, falsification or plagiarism occurred or whether alleged misconduct was Intentional, Knowing or Reckless. An Inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the Allegation.

2. Timeline for Institutional Inquiry

The Inquiry should be completed within ninety (90) Days after the start date of the Inquiry unless circumstances warrant a longer period. The Inquiry’s start date is the date that the RIO or designee commences the Inquiry following notification to Respondent or when the Inquiry Committee meets to review the Allegation of Research Misconduct.

If the Inquiry takes longer than ninety (90) Days to complete, the RIO will inform the IDO and the Respondent of the basis for the extension and the Inquiry report will document the reasons for exceeding the 90 Day period.

3. Order of Events:

A. Notification to Respondent(s):

At the time of initiation of the Institutional Inquiry, or prior, the RIO will make a reasonable effort to notify all identified Respondent(s) in writing that a Research Misconduct Inquiry has been initiated and describe the nature of the Allegation. During the Inquiry:

If additional Allegations are raised, the Respondent(s) will be notified in writing of the additional Allegations raised against them.
If additional Respondents are identified, the new Respondents will also be given written notification of the Allegations and will be given the same rights and opportunities as afforded to the initial Respondent. A new, separate Misconduct Proceeding for any additional Respondents is not required.
Only Allegations specific to a particular Respondent are to be included in the notification to that Respondent.
In all cases, the notification to the Respondent will include a copy of the Allegation and a copy of this policy.

B. Conduct of the Institutional Inquiry

The Inquiry can be conducted by either the RIO or designee with utilization of subject matter experts as needed or a Committee with members appointed by the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). The RIO, designee or Committee will perform a preliminary review of the evidence to evaluate whether an Investigation is warranted by evaluation of:

Whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct under applicable regulations and this Policy; and
Whether preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the Inquiry indicates that the Allegation may have substance; and
Whether there is potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

C. Conclusion of the Institutional Inquiry

Documenting the Institutional Inquiry

Regardless of outcome, the RIO, designee, or Committee will prepare a written Inquiry report. The Inquiry report will contain:

The names, professional aliases, and positions of the Respondent and Complainant(s).
A description of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct.
Details about applicable funding agency support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support.
The composition of the Inquiry Committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
An inventory of sequestered Research Records and other evidence and a description of how sequestration was conducted.
Transcripts of any interviews that were transcribed.
Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
The basis for recommendations on Allegation(s) which warrant an Investigation (if any) and which any Allegation(s) do not merit further Investigation (if any).
Any Institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

Opportunity to Comment on the Draft Inquiry Report

The RIO or designee will give the Respondent a copy of the draft Inquiry report for review and comment, along with a copy of this Policy and a copy of or reference to the applicable Research Misconduct regulations. The Respondent must provide any comments in writing within ten (10) Days of receipt of the draft Inquiry Report. The RIO may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a Complainant for comment. The Complainant must provide any comments in writing within ten (10) Days of receipt of the draft Inquiry report.

Final Inquiry Report and Notification

The RIO will prepare the final Inquiry report, which will include any comments on the report by the Respondent and/or Complainant(s). The RIO will notify the Respondent of the Inquiry’s final outcome and provide the Respondent with copies of the final Inquiry report along with a copy of this Policy and a copy of or reference to the applicable Research Misconduct regulations. The RIO may, but is not required to, notify a Complainant of whether the inquiry found that an Investigation was warranted. If the Institution provides such notice to one Complainant involved in the Inquiry , it must provide notice, to the extent possible, to all Complainants involved in the Inquiry.

If the Inquiry results in a determination that an Investigation is warranted, the RIO or designee will:

Provide written notification to Respondent(s) as outlined above, along with any Allegations of Research Misconduct not addressed during the Inquiry; and
Provide the applicable funding agency or regulatory authority with a copy of the written decision and Inquiry report (with all attachments) within 30 days of determination.
In cases involving current or former students, the Institution will only release educational records to third parties or those within the Institution without a need to know to the extent required or permitted by applicable law (including, without limitation, lawfully issued subpoena or court order).[3]

If the Inquiry results in a determination that an Investigation is not warranted, the Institution will:

keep sufficiently detailed documentation of the Inquiry to permit a later review by an applicable funding agency or regulatory authority of why the Institution did not proceed to an Investigation;
store such documentation in a secure manner for the length of time as required by applicable funding agency policy, or at least seven years, after the termination of the inquiry, and
provide such documentation to applicable funding agency or regulatory authority upon request.

IV. Institutional Investigation

1. Purpose

The purpose of an Investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) in order to facilitate the IDO’s final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each Allegation and any Institutional actions.

2. Timeline

The Institution shall begin the Investigation within 30 Days after an Inquiry determination that an Investigation is warranted.

All aspects of the Investigation shall be completed within 180 Days. If the Investigation requires more than 180 Days to complete, the Institution will ask the applicable funding agency or regulatory authority in writing for an extension, including circumstances or issues warranting additional time in excess of the 180-day Investigation period, file progress reports with applicable agencies or regulatory authorities if directed and document the reasons for exceeding the 180 Day Investigation period in the final Investigation Report.

3. Order of Events

A. Appointment of Investigation Committee:

The IDO will appoint an Investigation Committee and Investigation Committee Chair with appropriate scientific or other expertise who are also free of unresolved personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest in relation to the Investigation. The Committee may include members from outside of the Institution when necessary to secure expertise or to avoid conflicts of interest.

The Complainant(s) and Respondent(s) will be provided with a list of the Inquiry Committee’s membership. The Complainant(s) and/or Respondent(s) may object to any Committee member who they believe in Good Faith has a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest. Any such objection must be in writing specifying the basis for asserting a conflict of interest and be submitted to the RIO no more than 10 Days following notification regarding the committee membership. The RIO will submit the objection to the IDO, who will review it and determine whether any action should be taken with respect to such Committee member(s).

In the event a Committee member becomes unable or unwilling at any point to serve on the Committee, the IDO may appoint a replacement member. The RIO is available to the Committee but may not serve as a member of the Committee.

Once the Committee Members and Chairs are identified, the IDO will appoint the Committee and Committee Chair in writing, and provide to the Committee a written charge which:

informs the Committee of the purpose of Investigation, as described in this Section;
informs the Investigation Committee that it must conduct the Investigation in accordance with this Policy;
identifies the Respondent(s);
defines “Research Misconduct”;
describes the Allegation(s) and related issues identified during the Inquiry; and
informs the Investigation Committee that it must prepare a written Investigation Report that meets the requirements of Section IV.3.C. and IV.3.D. below.

B. Conduct of the Investigation

As part of its Investigation, the Institution, through the Investigation Committee, will pursue diligently all significant issues and relevant leads, including any evidence of additional instances of possible Research Misconduct, and continue the Investigation to completion. In the course of the Investigation, the Institution will:

Use diligent efforts to ensure that the Investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable.
Notify the Respondent(s) in writing of any additional Allegation(s) raised against them during the Investigation
Number all relevant exhibits and refer to any exhibits shown to the interviewee(s) during the interview(s) by that number.
Record and transcribe interviews during the Investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction.
Include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the Institutional Record of the Investigation.

The Respondent(s) will not be present during Witness interviews, but the Institution will provide the Respondent(s) with a transcript of each interview.

C. Investigation Report

1. Draft Investigation Report

The Institution will prepare a draft Investigation Report for each Respondent. The Investigation report for each Respondent will include:

Description of the nature of the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct, including any additional Allegation(s) addressed during the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
Description and documentation of funding support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing funding support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent(s) has pending with applicable agencies.
Description of the specific Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation of the Respondent.
Composition of Investigation Committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
Inventory of sequestered Research Records and other evidence, except records the Institution did not consider or rely on. This inventory will include manuscripts and funding proposals that were considered or relied on during the Investigation. The inventory will also include a description of how sequestration was conducted.
Transcripts of all interviews conducted.
Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), funding applications (funded and/or pending), progress reports, presentations, posters, or other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
A copy of this Policy (if not already provided).
A statement for each separate Allegation where the Committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct.
Distribution of draft Investigation Report, Comment Period

The Institution will give the Respondent a copy of the draft Investigation Report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the Research Records and other evidence that the Investigation Committee considered or relied on. The Institution will provide the opportunity for Respondent(s) to comment on the draft Investigation Report. The Respondent must submit any comments to the Institution within thirty (30) Days of the date on which they received the Report.

If the Institution chooses to share a copy of the draft Investigation report or relevant portions of it with the Complainant(s) for comment, the Complainant’s comments will be submitted within 30 days of the date on which they received the Report.

1. Final Investigation Report

The final Investigation Report will include the information outlined above, and will also include any comments made by the Respondent(s) and Complainant(s) on the draft Investigation Report and the Committee’s consideration of those comments.

D. Committee Recommendation

In order to recommend a finding of Research Misconduct, the Committee must determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

There was a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
The misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.

1. If the Committee recommends a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation

These written findings will:

Identify the individual(s) who committed the Research Misconduct;
Indicate whether the Research Misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism;
Indicate whether the Research Misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly;
Identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community;
Summarize the facts and analysis, including consideration of any explanation by the Respondent(s), that the evidence supports the Committee’s findings that the Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence;
Identify the specific funding support;
State whether any publications need correction or retraction; and
Identify any current, pending or applications for applicable funding agency support.

1. If the Investigation Committee does not recommend a finding of Research Misconduct for an Allegation

The Investigation Report will provide a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

E. Review and Decision

The IDO will review the Investigation Report and the Investigation Committee recommendation, and make a final written determination of whether the Institution found Research Misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO will include a description of relevant Institutional actions taken or to be taken.

F. The Institutional Record

The Institution will add the IDO’s written decision to the Investigation Report and prepare the Institutional Record for submission in accordance with applicable funding agency or regulatory requirements.

The Institution will maintain the Institutional Record, all sequestered Research Records and other evidence in a secure manner for the length of time as required by applicable funding agency policy or regulation, or at least seven years after completion of the Institutional proceeding, whichever is longer, and will provide the Institutional Record to the applicable funding agency or regulatory authority as required by law or policy.

4. Appeal

A Respondent may file a written appeal to the IDO regarding the Institution’s finding(s) of Research Misconduct based on (1) procedural errors or (2) new information that could reasonably impact the determination. The written appeal must be submitted within ten (10) Days of Respondent’s receipt of the determination. The IDO will review the appeal request and, if the IDO agrees that the errors or new information could reasonably impact the determination the IDO will convene a new Investigation Committee. After conclusion of any reconsideration, no further appeals are available. Any appeals of recommended Institutional actions to be implemented by areas other than the Office of the Vice President for Research will be handled in accordance with applicable University By-Laws or other applicable policies and any applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The Institution will notify the applicable funding agency or regulatory authority of the appeal, and:

If the Institutional Record has not yet been submitted, hold submission of the final Institutional Record until completion of the Appeal and include the complete record of the Appeal in the Institutional Record
If the Institutional Record has already been submitted, the Institution will transmit a complete Record of the appeal once the appeal has been concluded.

5. Actions Following Investigation

If a finding of Research Misconduct is made, the IDO will direct the Office of the Vice President for Research to take any necessary actions related to research at the Institution, including but not limited to removal from awards, restriction on ability to serve as Investigator or restriction on ability to conduct or participate in Research. Institution will take steps to manage published data or acknowledge that data may be unreliable in accordance with this Policy and applicable law, regulation or funding agency policy. Respondent(s) are required to cooperate with efforts to correct inaccurate research data or findings in publications or grant applications and/or ensure the completion of such corrections as directed.

V. Special Circumstances

1. Admission of Research Misconduct

If a Respondent admits to Research Misconduct at any point during a Research Misconduct Proceeding, the Respondent will submit a written, signed admission which specifies the falsification, fabrication and/or plagiarism that occurred, meets the elements required for a Research Misconduct finding and identifies which Research Records were affected.

In the event of an admission of Research Misconduct, the Institution will notify any applicable funding agency or regulatory authority containing information as required by funding agency or regulatory authority.

In addition to any Institutional action, any applicable funding agency or regulatory authority with jurisdiction may take action, including:

Approve or conditionally approve closure of the case or
Direct the Institution to complete the full review process or
Direct the Institution to address deficiencies in the Institutional Record or
Direct the Institution to refer the matter to the funding Agency or regulatory authority for further Investigation or
Take compliance action in addition to any action imposed by Institution.

2. Health, Safety and other Interests

At any time during a Research Misconduct Proceeding, the Institution may be required under applicable policy or regulation to notify the applicable funding agency or regulatory authority with appropriate jurisdiction immediately if it has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:

Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
Funding agency resources or interests are threatened.
Research activities should be suspended.
There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the Research Misconduct Proceeding.
The funding Agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

3. Multiple Institutions/Organizations

When Allegations involve Research conducted at multiple Institutions, the Allegation may be reviewed through a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding. In a joint Research Misconduct Proceeding:

One Institution will be designated as the lead Institution
The lead Institution will obtain Research Records and other evidence pertinent to the Proceeding, including Witness testimony, from the other relevant Institutions.
By mutual agreement, the joint Research Misconduct Proceeding may include Committee members from the institutions involved.
The determination of whether further Inquiry and/or Investigation is warranted, whether Research Misconduct occurred, and the Institutional actions to be taken may be made by the institutions jointly or tasked to the lead Institution.
An Investigation into multiple Respondents may convene with the same Committee members but there will be separate Investigation reports and separate Research Misconduct determinations for each Respondent.

REFERENCES

PHS 42 C.F.R. Part 93

NSF 45 C.F.R. 689

POLICY HISTORY

Policy revisions:

9/15/17 (Approved by President’s Cabinet)

11/17/2025 (Approved by Senior Policy Council)

[1] When the Allegation of Research Misconduct relates to activities funded by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the Institution applies the requirements of the PHS regulations at 42 C.F.R. Part 93.

When the Allegation of Research Misconduct relates to activities funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) the Institution applies the requirements of the NSF at 45 C.F.R. 689

When the Allegation of Research Misconduct relates to activities funded by other agencies or sponsors, the Institution applies the requirements of those agencies or sponsors.

When the Allegation of Research Misconduct relates to activities that are not otherwise funded or supported, or where there are no funding agency or regulatory authority specific requirements, the Institution will apply the standards, limitations and definitions found in 42 C.F.R Part 93.

[2] Those who need to know may include but is not limited to: Institutional compliance review committees, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and other institutions/entities.

[3] See 34 CFR § 99.31.

Working Alone Policy

Posted on July 30, 2012January 13, 2025 by Carone, Debbie

Title:	Working Alone Policy
Policy Owner:	Division of Environmental Health and Safety
Applies to:	University Students
Campus Applicability:	Storrs, Regionals, Law School
Effective Date:	January 2013
For More Information, Contact	Environmental Health and Safety
Contact Information:	(860) 486-3613
Official Website:	http://www.ehs.uconn.edu/

POLICY STATEMENT

No student is permitted to Work Alone in an Immediately Hazardous Environment.

REASON FOR POLICY

This policy has been developed to minimize the risk of serious injury while Working Alone with materials, equipment or in areas that could result in serious injury or an immediate life-threatening hazard.

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral students performing academic or research related work at the University of Connecticut Storrs, regional campuses and the Law School.

DEFINITIONS

Working Alone means an isolated student working with an immediately hazardous material, equipment or in an area that, if safety procedures fail, could reasonably result in incapacitation and serious life threatening injury for which immediate first aide assistance is not available.

Immediately Hazardous Environment describes any material, activity or circumstance that could cause instantaneous incapacitation rendering an individual unable to seek assistance. Examples include but are not limited to: potential exposure to poisonous chemicals and gases at a level approaching the IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life & Health); work with pyrophoric and explosive chemicals; work with pressurized chemical systems; entering confined spaces; work near high voltage equipment; work with power equipment that could pinch or grab body parts and/or clothing; etc.

Unit Managers are managers, supervisors, principle investigators, faculty, Department Heads and others who are responsible for assigning work to students that involve potential exposure to immediately hazardous environments.

Safety Content Expert is a safety professional from the UConn Department of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS). EHS provides guidance to Unit Managers and their designees regarding the proper classification of campus activities as Immediately Hazardous or not; and provides safety information regarding proper procedures and personal protective equipment needed.

Direct Observation means the assigned second person is in line of sight or close hearing range with the individual working in an Immediately Hazardous Environment.

ENFORCEMENT

Violations of this policy may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University Laws and Bylaws, General Rules of Conduct for All University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements and the University of Connecticut Student Conduct Code.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Unit Managers are responsible for identifying the risks and conditions that may place a student in an Immediately Hazardous Environment. If unsure about a specific task or location, Unit Managers are advised to contact EHS to assist in recognizing/evaluating risks, and to help in developing appropriate hazard controls. The Unit Manager is also responsible to see that personnel are properly trained, proper procedures are in place, and that proper personal protective equipment is readily available and use is mandatory. This is documented by means of the Workplace Hazard Assessment form.

If the task/area is deemed a Working Alone situation, the Unit Manager must either:

a) Assign a second person for the duration of the immediately hazardous task or for work in immediately hazardous locations (confined spaces, elevated work area, etc.); or

b) Reschedule the work to a time when others are available to help monitor the welfare of the assigned student.

All personnel are responsible for notifying the Unit Managers of situations that present the possibility of a student Working Alone in an immediately hazardous environment.

Personnel assigned to keep watch must provide Direct Observation at all times while students are in an Immediately Hazardous Environment to prevent a Working Alone situation.

Students are directly responsible for adhering to all safety procedures, wearing appropriate personal protective equipment and to be current in training requirements. Students shall not Work Alone in an area or on tasks that have been recognized as an Immediately Hazardous Environment.

Environmental Health & Safety (EHS) personnel shall, upon request, assist in identifying Immediately Hazardous Environments and Working Alone situations. EHS shall assist in the anticipation, recognition and evaluation of hazards and provide expertise in developing controls to prevent injuries to personnel. EHS will verify submitted area Workplace Hazard Assessment during routine inspections.

Recommended Safety Information Resources

Refer to the EH&S website for additional workplace safety requirements:

Policies, programs and procedures

Training

Forms

Human Stem Cell Research Approval

Posted on June 26, 2012February 2, 2024 by Brandon Murray

Title:	Human Stem Cell Research Approval
Policy Owner:	Office of the Vice President for Research
Applies to:	Employees, Faculty, Students, Other
Campus Applicability:	All Campuses
Effective Date:	May 25, 2018
For More Information, Contact	Office of the Vice President for Research
Contact Information:	(860) 486-3001
Official Website:	https://ovpr.uchc.edu/

REASON FOR POLICY

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that proposals for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and selected types of human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research are approved by the University’s Stem Cell Research Oversight (SCRO) Committee. This policy does not apply to primary cells isolated from human tissues that are not manipulated to become pluripotent.

The role of the SCRO Committee is to ensure that human embryonic stem cell (hESC) and selected types of human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research at all University of Connecticut campuses is well-justified and that inappropriate and/or unethical research is not conducted. The SCRO Committee facilitates the collaboration between researchers across University campuses by adopting nationally and internationally accepted standards designed to protect the University’s reputation for ethical and responsible research.

The review and approval of hESC research by the SCRO Committee (or its equivalent) is required by Connecticut law. The SCRO Committee review and approval is also required for all proposals funded by the State of Connecticut Regenerative Medicine Research Fund.

APPLIES TO

All University faculty, employees, students, postdoctoral fellows, residents and other trainees, and agents who supervise or conduct research involving hESCs and select types of iPSCs.

DEFINITIONS

Human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC): Human embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells that are self-replicating, derived from human embryos, and are capable of developing into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although human embryonic stem cells may be derived from embryos, such stem cells are not themselves embryos.

Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (iPSC): Human induced stem cells are a type of pluripotent stem cell that have been artificially created by reprogramming non-pluripotent human cells through techniques that do not involve oocytes or embryos, e.g., through inserting genes into a somatic cell.

POLICY STATEMENT

All research projects in the following categories are required to obtain SCRO Committee approval before acquiring cells or cell lines and before commencing research:

All research involving hESCs and their derivatives;
All stem cell research involving human gametes and human embryos;
All stem cell research projects funded by the State of Connecticut, including those that do not use hESCs;
All in vitro human iPSC research involving the generation of gametes, embryos, or other types of totipotent cells; and
All in vivo research involving implantation of human iPSCs into prenatal animals or into the central nervous system of post-natal animals.

The SCRO Committee supplements but does not replace other University review processes (e.g., reviews by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), Institutional Review Boards (IRB), Institutional Biological Safety Committees (IBC), etc.) and compliance with applicable legal requirements.

ENFORCEMENT

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Connecticut General Statutes §§ 4-28e and 32-41jj to 32-41mm, inclusive

NIH Stem Cell Information

POLICY HISTORY

Revisions: March 28, 2012; May 25, 2018 (Approved by President’s Cabinet)

Space Heaters in University Buildings

Posted on January 11, 2012January 1, 2025 by Sundara, Anida

Title:	Space Heaters in University Buildings
Policy Owner:	UConn Fire Marshal and Building Inspector
Applies to:	University Workforce Members and Students
Campus Applicability:	All UConn Campuses except UConn Health
Approval Date:	December 24, 2024
Effective Date:	January 1, 2025
For More Information, Contact:	UConn Fire Marshal
Contact Information:	firemarshal@uconn.edu
Official Website:	https://firemarshal.universitysafety.uconn.edu/

PURPOSE

To protect employees, students, and visitors from fire, electrical, and other safety risks associated with space heaters. The policy is designed to comply with the Connecticut State Fire Prevention & Building Codes, regulations from the Connecticut Department of Public Health, and the Connecticut Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to University workforce members and students using space heaters in University-Property at the Storrs and Regional Campuses, extension centers, and the UConn School of Law.

DEFINITIONS

University Property: Any building, space, or area under the control of or leased by the University of Connecticut.

POLICY STATEMENT

The University of Connecticut is committed to providing a safe and healthful environment.

Improper usage of space heaters poses serious fire and safety risks to the UConn community. Space heaters must be selected from the UConn Fire Department/Fire Marshal Unit (FD/FMU) list of approved models and used only under conditions outlined in this policy. Unapproved or non-electric space heaters are strictly prohibited.

All space heaters require a permit for use. Space heaters are only permitted under the following conditions:

When heating systems fail within an occupied space.
To supplement existing heating systems for employee comfort, in spaces that are not restricted.
When temporary heating is required in unheated spaces.

In residential occupancies, space heaters may only be used temporarily, with restrictions on the duration of use, and must have a permit issued by the FD/FMU prior to use. Space heaters are prohibited in laboratories, workshops, art studios, storage areas, or any space where chemicals or combustible materials are present, as well as any space not actively occupied by people. In limited cases, space heaters may be allowed in laboratory offices if the UConn FD/FMU grants permission.

The UConn FD/FMU reserves the right to inspect and remove any space heater that is used inappropriately or presents a danger to life or property.

ENFORCEMENT

Violations of this policy or associated procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary measures in accordance with University By-Laws, General Rules of Conduct for All University Employees, applicable collective bargaining agreements, and the University of Connecticut Student Code.

PROCEDURES

The following procedures to request a space heater must be followed:

Contact Facilities Operations to submit a work order to evaluate and adjust the temperatures in the affected area. Facilities Operations will determine whether repairs to the heating system can resolve the issue.
If Facilities Operations cannot resolve the heating issue, the affected individual must contact the UConn FD/FMU.
The UConn FD/FMU, in coordination with Facilities Operations as necessary, will determine whether the proposed location and electrical circuit can accommodate a space heater.
If the proposed location is approved, the UConn FD/FMU will issue a permit and provide a list of approved space heaters to the affected individual(s). Other space heaters that have not been approved by the UConn FD/FMU must be taken out of service and be removed from the building.
If the proposed location is not approved for a space heater (e.g., the proposed location is in a laboratory, the electrical circuit is inadequate, etc.), additional options will be evaluated.

Upon approval and receipt of a permit by the UConn FD/FMU, individuals must comply with the following procedures while using space heaters:

Read and follow the manufacturer’s operating instructions before using a space heater.
Inspect the space heater for dust before each use and clean if necessary.
Inspect the electrical cord and plug outlet for damage before each use. Remove the space heater from service if any damage to the cord or other parts are found.
Never leave a space heater operating unattended. Always turn off the device and unplug it when the area is vacant or when going to bed.
Plug space heaters into an electrical circuit that is rated for 15 amps or more to prevent overloading.
Always plug space heaters directly into a permanent wall outlet (receptacle). Do not use an extension cord or power strip.
1. Exception: Radiant panel heaters may be used with extension cords or power strips rated for 15 amps or more, if approved by the UConn FD/FMU.
Never run an electrical cord for a space heater under a carpet or floor mat.
Do not place space heaters under desks or in enclosed spaces.
Ensure space heaters are placed on a stable level surface to prevent tipping, unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer.
Never use a space heater where flammable materials or vapors are present.
Do not place a space heater near combustible materials such as papers, fabric, plastics, or furniture.
Do not use space heaters in or near wet areas.
Keep space heaters out of high traffic areas. Never block an exit.
Maintain the manufacturer’s recommended clearance around the space heater for safe operation.
Avoid placing space heaters near room thermostats.
Inspect space heaters at least annually and have them repaired, as needed, by a qualified electrician.
Discard any space heater that cannot be repaired, and, while unplugged, cut off the plug to prevent inadvertent use by others.

If space heaters are deemed unsafe and removed from service, they will be relocated to a designated storage area for owners to retrieve and remove from University property.

Department-owned space heaters may be removed through Surplus Operations.

POLICY HISTORY

Revisions:
01/24/2004
09/28/2011
02/06/2012
12/24/2024