Others

Service Center Policy

Title: Service Center Policy
Policy Owner: Robin Hoagland
Applies to: Faculty, Staff and Designated Affiliates
Campus Applicability: UConn Storrs and Regionals
Effective Date: December 26, 2014
For More Information, Contact Robin Hoagland
Contact Information: (860) 486-3780
Official Website: http://accountingoffice.uconn.edu/

 

REASON FOR POLICY

To ensure that the University is in compliance with the cost principles and accounting standards set forth by the federal government.

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to faculty, staff and designated affiliates of the University of Connecticut, Storrs and Regional Campuses.

DEFINITIONS

Service Center– a unit which charges a rate to recover the full allowable cost of goods or services provided.  This differs from a unit which charges another area for the cost of the goods or services only, without consideration of other recoverable costs such as overhead costs.  A unit of this type is defined as a “Recharge Center”.

OMB Uniform Guidance – publication of the Office of Management and Budget titled “Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.”

Governmental Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) – standards and rules administered by the federal government for use in achieving uniformity and consistency under federal contracts.

Service Center and Cost Recovery Committee (SCCRC) – a University committee responsible for approving the establishment of and rates charged by University Service Centers.

POLICY STATEMENT

The Office of Cost Analysis (OCA), a unit within the University’s Accounting Office, is responsible for ensuring that the establishment of and the rates charged  by  University Service Centers are approved by the SCCRC in accordance with OMB Uniform Guidance.  The Office of Cost Analysis reviews the rates charged by Service Centers, and ensures that the rates are consistent with good business practice and comply with all applicable regulatory and legal requirements, including those outlined in OMB Uniform Guidance and the Governmental Cost Accounting Standards (CAS).  The OCA will ensure that federal grants and contracts are not charged a rate that is higher than what any other internal or external customer may be charged for goods and services.  External rates include indirect costs or overhead, whereas internal rates include only direct costs.  Departments operating Service Centers must have the Center and the rates used by the Center, approved by the SCCRC in advance of commencing operations.

Additional information on Service Centers and cost accounting principles at the University can be found in the Cost Accounting Disclosure Statements (CADS):

Direct and Indirect Costs of Federal Grants and Contracts https://accountingoffice.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/2018/04/CADS1-Uconn-policies-updated-for-UG.pdf

Cost Sharing https://accountingoffice.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/2015/08/CADS2.pdf

Financial Management of Service Centers https://accountingoffice.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/143/2015/08/University-of-Connecticut.pdf

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 Conduct Code.

PROCEDURES/FORMS

For more information on OMB Uniform Guidance, please see

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_docs

 

Personal Services Fringe Rate Calculation for Grants/Research

Title: Personal Services Fringe Rate Calculation for Grants/Research
Policy Owner: Robin Hoagland
Applies to: Faculty, staff and designated University affiliates
Campus Applicability: Storrs and Regional Campuses
Effective Date: December 26, 2014
For More Information, Contact Robin Hoagland
Contact Information: (860) 486-3780
Official Website: http://accountingoffice.uconn.edu/

 

REASON FOR POLICY

To ensure that the University is in compliance with the cost principles and accounting standards set forth by the federal government.

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to faculty, staff and designated affiliates of the University of Connecticut, Storrs and Regional Campuses.

DEFINITIONS

Personal Services Fringe Rates are calculated to cover the cost of employer-paid contributions for retirement, health care, life insurance and other fringe benefits on grants.  The rates vary because the calculation is based on a percentage of salaries for different categories of personnel.

OMB Uniform Guidance – publication of the Office of Management and Budget titled “Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.”

Governmental Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) – standards and rules administered by the federal Government for use in achieving uniformity and consistency under federal contracts.

POLICY STATEMENT

The Office of Cost Analysis (OCA), a unit within the University’s Accounting Office, is responsible for calculating personal services fringe rates that are charged to research grants in accordance with OMB Uniform Guidance and the Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS).  Federal grants may not be charged personal services fringe rates unless approved by the Department of Health and Human Services, our cognizant federal agency. University departments charging personal services to grants must use the approved fringe rates.

PROCEDURES/FORMS

The rates are calculated by the OCA based on current financial information and then adjusted annually in the future rates, based on actual costs.

For more information on OMB Uniform Guidance, please see

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_docs

Policy on Alleged Misconduct in Research

Title: Policy on Alleged Misconduct in Research
Policy Owner: Office of Vice President for Research
Applies to: Faculty, Staff, Students, Others
Campus Applicability:  All Campuses
Effective Date: 9/15/2017
For More Information, Contact Michelle K. Williams
Contact Information: (860) 486-3001
Official Website: http://research.uconn.edu

 

It is the expectation and policy of the University of Connecticut, including its Regional Campuses and the University of Connecticut Health Center (the “University”), that the design, conduct, oversight and reporting of research be carried out with the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior. While the primary responsibility for integrity and ethical behavior in research rests with those who conduct it, the University strives to establish an environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, encourages reporting of any research related concerns, and addresses promptly and effectively any allegations of research misconduct.

This policy sets forth a process for determining whether research misconduct has occurred and taking appropriate action.  The following are the key components: (1) responsibilities and time lines (2) the handling of an allegation, including the initial inquiry and if necessary, the full investigation, (3) the final report and the imposition of University Actions if research misconduct is found, and (5) the respondent’s right to appeal.

Definitions

Allegation – means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication, including written or oral statements.

Complainant(s) – The Complainant(s) is a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.

Conflict of Interest – A conflict of interest as applied to this policy exists when a member of the Inquiry Committee or the Special Review Board has a collaborative professional, personal or financial relationship with a Respondent(s), Complainant(s), potential witnesses or others involved in the matter which might influence the member or might reasonably be perceived to influence the member. Membership in the same academic department as a Respondent(s) or Complainant(s) may, but does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest.

Evidence – means any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.

Good Faith –as applied to a Complainant(s) or witness, means having a belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the Complainant(s)’s or witness’ position could have, based on the information known to the Complainant(s) or witness at the time. Making a research misconduct allegation or cooperating with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if one knowingly or recklessly disregards information that would negate the research misconduct or testimony.

As applied to a committee member, good faith means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the duties assigned impartially for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities. A committee member does not act in good faith if his/her acts or omissions on the committee are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.

Inquiry – means a preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact-finding activity conducted by the Inquiry Committee as described in this policy.

Inquiry Committee—means the committee that conducts the Inquiry.

Investigation – means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to either a decision not to make a finding of research misconduct or a recommendation for a finding of research misconduct, which may include a recommendation for other appropriate actions, including administrative actions.

Person – means any individual, corporation, partnership, institution, association, unit of government, or legal entity, however organized.

Preponderance of the Evidence – means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

Report – means the report summarizing the findings and conclusions prepared by the Inquiry Committee or Special Review Board.

Research – means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) relating broadly to public health by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating or confirming information about, or the underlying mechanism relating to, biological causes, functions or effects, diseases, treatments, or related matters to be studied.

Research record – means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, including but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided to federal oversight agencies or an institutional official by a Respondent(s) in the course of the research misconduct proceeding. The research record could include instrumentation that stores research records.

Research Misconduct – means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

  1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  2. Falsification is 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.
  3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Authorship disputes are not defined as plagiarism in this policy.

Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.

Research Misconduct Proceeding – means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken by the University, including but not limited to, research misconduct assessments, inquiries, investigations, federal agency oversight reviews, hearings, and administrative appeals.

Respondent(s) – means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding.

Retaliation – for the purpose of this policy means an adverse action taken against a Complainant(s), witness, or committee member by the University, or anyone associated with the research misconduct proceedings, in response to:

  1. A good faith allegation of research misconduct; or,
  2. Good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding.

Special Review Board or SRB – means the board that conducts the Investigation.

VPR – means the University’s Vice President for Research or the successor in function.

Time Limitations

Unless otherwise required by law, this Policy applies only to research misconduct occurring within six years prior to the date that the University receives an allegation of research misconduct.

The six year limitation does not apply if: (1) the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation by citing, republishing or otherwise using the Research Record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, or (2) if a federal agency with appropriate jurisdiction or the University, determines that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

Jurisdictional Authority

This policy applies to any research, research training, or activities related to research, such as 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, regardless of source of financial support, which is conducted using the facilities, resources, or funds of the University.  The policy also applies to the actions of faculty, staff, contractors, students or trainees who are employed, contracted, enrolled, working or performing research activities at the University at the time the alleged research misconduct occurred.

This policy does not apply to alleged research misconduct performed by persons who are not faculty, employees or contractors of the University, or are not students or trainees working at the University, when the alleged research misconduct occurred.  This policy is limited to addressing research misconduct as defined in the policy and no other types of misconduct or non-compliance.  When the allegation of research misconduct relates to activities funded by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the University applies the requirements of the PHS regulations at 42 C.F.R. Part 93 and this policy is intended to meet those requirements.  When the allegation of research misconduct relates to activities funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) the University applies the requirements of the NSF at 45 C.F.R. 689 and this policy is intended to meet those requirements.  When the allegation of research misconducts relates to activities funded by other agencies or sponsors, the University applies the requirements of those agencies or sponsors and the policy is intended to meet those requirements.  When the allegation of research misconduct relates to activities that are not otherwise funded or supported, or where there are no agency or sponsor specific requirements the University will apply the requirements of this policy. Where required, this policy may be modified to the extent necessary to conform to the requirements of PHS, NSF and other funding agencies or sponsors. Where there is a discrepancy between this Policy and either applicable laws or regulations or the requirements of the funding agency or sponsor, the law/regulation or agency/sponsor requirement will take precedence unless it is less restrictive.

Responsibilities

Faculty, Staff, Students and Trainees – University faculty, staff, students and trainees must conduct research in accordance with the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior of their profession. University faculty, staff, students and trainees must report instances of suspected research misconduct, as defined in this Policy.  All faculty, staff, students and trainees must cooperate fully with the administration and implementation of this Policy.

Research Integrity Officer (RIO) – The RIO has primary responsibility and authority for implementation of the procedures set forth in this policy. The RIO will be an institutional official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.  The RIO serves as the principal contact point for interactions with Complainant(s), Respondent(s), witnesses, University officials, and federal agencies or sponsors.  It is the RIO’s responsibility to keep University officials informed, as required by policy or on a need-to-know basis, of the status of research misconduct proceedings.  The RIO serves as executive secretary (non-voting) of the Inquiry Committee and SRB.  The RIO is designated by the VPR and may be a single University wide RIO or a separate RIO for each campus.

The RIO will assist the Inquiry Committee, SRB and all institutional personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The RIO is also responsible for maintaining all research records and evidence in accordance with applicable policies and regulations.

The RIO will report to federal agencies, funding agencies and or other external entities as required by regulation to keep them apprised of any developments during the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the government agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of public funds or otherwise protect the public interest.

Inquiry Committee It is the Inquiry Committee’s responsibility to conduct the inquiry into allegations of research misconduct in accordance with this policy, and to recommend to the VPR whether an investigation of research misconduct is warranted.

The Inquiry Committee will consist of the RIO and a minimum of three faculty members appointed by the VPR.  The chair of the Inquiry Committee will be one of the three faculty members. The VPR may appoint other individuals to serve as either voting or non-voting members of the Inquiry Committee. A majority of the committee participants will be faculty.  The Inquiry Committee may be appointed as a standing committee or on an as needed basis at the discretion of the VPR.  For a standing committee terms the VPR will appoint members for a set term of no more than five years, which may be staggered and with reappointment possible after a one year rotation off the committee.  The VPR will make legal counsel available to the Inquiry Committee as necessary, which may include appointing counsel (internal or outside counsel) to assist in the conduct of the Inquiry.

Special Review Board (SRB) – The SRB conducts an investigation in accordance with this policy in response to a recommendation by the Inquiry Committee. The purpose of the investigation is to recommend to the VPR whether the Respondent has committed research misconduct.

The SRB will be appointed by the VPR upon receipt of a recommendation for investigation from the Inquiry Committee. The SRB will consist of the RIO and a minimum of senior faculty members.  The chair of the SRB will be one of the three faculty members.  Some or all of the members of the Inquiry Committee may be included on the SRB. Every attempt will be made to appoint the SRB in a manner that will guarantee that the SRB has the requisite scientific expertise needed to conduct an investigation. In the event that it is necessary, individuals with appropriate scientific expertise from institutions other than the University may be added as voting members to the membership of the SRB. The VPR may appoint other individuals, as s/he feels necessary to serve as voting or non-voting members of the Inquiry Committee.  A majority of the committee participants will be faculty of the University. The VPR will make legal counsel available to the SRB as necessary, which may include appointing counsel (internal or outside counsel) to assist in the conduct of the Investigation.

Vice President for Research (VPR) – The VPR is the responsible institutional official of the University under whose jurisdiction this policy is implemented and enforced, and is the final arbiter for issues related to research misconduct adjudicated under this Policy.  In the event the VPR is not able to fulfill the requirements of this Policy, the President of the University will appoint a replacement.

Protection of the Complainant(s) and the Respondent(s)

Complainant(s) – The University will protect from retaliation all employees and students who have made an allegation of research misconduct (see the University’s Non-Retaliation Policy at http://policy.uconn.edu/2011/05/24/non-retaliation-policy ).

Respondent(s) – It is the policy of the University that until research misconduct inquiries or investigations are completed, Respondent(s) are considered innocent of the research misconduct allegations made against them, and protected against arbitrary and capricious actions that might be taken against them by deans, department heads or supervisors. This protection, however, will not prevent the University from exercising its duty under this Policy to sequester evidence or to conduct research misconduct inquiries or investigations, nor the ability to take interim administrative measures as described in this Policy.

Confidentiality

Disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants in research misconduct proceedings is limited to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding as allowed by law. The University may have to disclose the identity of respondents and complainants to federal officials under certain circumstances.

Except as otherwise provided by law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. Disclosure in this circumstance is limited to those who have a need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.

Handling an Allegation of research misconduct

All reports and concerns related to actual or potential research misconduct, regardless of who receives the report, should be promptly referred to the RIO.  After receiving an allegation of research misconduct the RIO will assess the allegation(s) to determine if it meets the definition of research misconduct and is sufficiently credible and specific so that the allegations can be effectively investigated.

Review with Complainant:  Unless the allegation is anonymous, the RIO will:

  1. Review the substance and nature of the research misconduct with the Complainant(s)
  2. Inform the Complainant(s) that once specific details such as names are discussed with the RIO, the research misconduct review process must be invoked and cannot be suspended or stopped until the process has been concluded.
  3. Inform the Complainant(s) that the report may be submitted anonymously. The Complainant(s) will also be advised that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, and that the their identity may be revealed on a need-to-know basis, may be inferred during the inquiry or investigation or may be required to be disclosed to a federal oversight agency or under applicable laws;
  4. Notify the Complainant(s) that, if the report has not been made in written form, it will be put in writing by the RIO. The Complainant(s) will be asked to provide as much detail as possible regarding the research misconduct and offered an opportunity to review the written allegation of research misconduct.
  5. Notify the Complainant(s) that he/she will not participate in the fact-finding phase, or in any other aspect of the determination of misconduct, other than as a witness.
  6. Notify the Complainant(s) of the expectation that the Complainant will keep confidential the allegation of misconduct.

Review with Respondent:  The RIO may discuss the allegation of research misconduct with the Respondent(s) and other individuals as needed to determine if the issues that form the basis of the research misconduct are appropriate for consideration through the research misconduct process.

Referral to Other University Entities:  The RIO will refer the issue to other appropriate entities within the University such as the Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics, law enforcement, institutional review board, and institutional animal care and use committee, as the RIO believes appropriate, or as required by policy or regulation.

Review with VPR:  The RIO will confer with the VPR or their designee to review the substance of the allegation of research misconduct and determine if an inquiry is warranted.

Findings that Allegations Were Not Made in Good Faith:  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 the Provost and the VPR, and made part of the Inquiry or Investigative report as applicable.  The Provost, in consultation with the VPR, the Dean of the appropriate School, and Office of Faculty and Staff Labor Relations and taken in a manner consistent with the relevant collective bargaining agreement, will determine what will  be taken by the University in response to a finding that allegations were not made in good faith.

Conduct of an Inquiry

The purpose of an inquiry is to conduct an initial review of evidence to determine whether an allegation of research misconduct warrants investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation of research misconduct.  An inquiry is warranted if the RIO determines that:

  1. A reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct and
  2. The allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct can be effectively evaluated.

Appointment of Inquiry Committee:  The VPR will appoint an Inquiry Committee.  Any member of the committee who believes he/she may have a conflict of interest or the appearance of one must declare such. Any member of the committee may identify other committee member(s) as having a conflict of interest.  The VPR will review any declared or identified potential conflicts of interest and make the determination regarding the member’s participation on the committee.

The Complainant(s) and Respondent(s) will be provided with a roster of the Inquiry Committee’s membership, and given the opportunity to identify committee member(s) as having a conflict of interest.  The VPR will review any identified potential conflicts of interest and make the determination regarding the member’s participation on the committee.

In the event a member becomes unable or unwilling at any point to serve, the VPR may appoint a replacement member.

Notification of Respondent:  The RIO will make a reasonable effort to notify all identified Respondent(s) that a research misconduct inquiry has been initiated and describe the nature of the allegation of research misconduct. The correspondence will include a copy of the allegation and a copy of this policy. Notification that an inquiry has been initiated will be sent to the VPR, the Respondent(s) Dean and Department Head, and the Office of Audit Compliance & Ethics.

Securing Evidence:  At the research misconduct inquiry stage or on or before the date on which the Respondent(s) is notified the inquiry begins the RIO, along with other staff as needed (e.g., Information Technology Department, Facilities, law enforcement, etc.) must take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner.  Where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.

The RIO has the authority to sequester evidence and records in accordance with university policy.  The RIO will seek the cooperation of the Respondent(s) in identifying and sequestering records and evidence.

Where appropriate and if requested, the Respondent(s) will be provided copies of, or reasonable supervised access to the sequestered research records.

The authority to sequester evidence by the RIO shall extend through the entirety of the research misconduct proceedings.  Additional items will be sequestered whenever they become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation. The sequestered research record and evidence shall be maintained as required by applicable policies and regulation.

In the event that a Respondent(s) has not been identified, but a decision to initiate an inquiry has been made as described above, the RIO has the authority to sequester research records as described, but only after conferring with the director of that unit, and providing the director with a copy of the research misconduct allegations.

Conduct of Inquiry:  The Inquiry Committee will conduct the inquiry by an objective analysis of all the evidence including interviews with individuals with information relevant to the inquiry. The Complainant(s), if known, will be offered the opportunity to be interviewed by the Inquiry Committee.

Respondent Interview:  The Respondent(s) will be interviewed by the Inquiry Committee and the Respondent will be provided an opportunity to provide written questions regarding the research misconduct, if desired. The Respondent(s) has the right to be represented at his/her own expense by legal counsel and/or to be accompanied by a union representative if the respondent is covered by a collective bargaining agreement.  Counsel and/or the union representative will serve in a role consistent with an investigatory interview, but may not materially disrupt the process.

Respondent’s Failure to Cooperate:  In the event the Respondent(s) refuses to cooperate with the inquiry, the Inquiry Committee will, after reasonable attempts to engage the Respondent(s)’s cooperation, continue the inquiry without testimony or other evidence from the Respondent(s).

Additional Respondents:  Should additional Respondent(s) be identified at any time during the research misconduct Proceeding, they will be notified as described in this Policy and may be included as part of an ongoing inquiry or investigation, or as Respondent(s) in a new process as determined by the RIO in consultation with the VPR.

Timeline for the Inquiry:  The inquiry’s start date is the date that the Inquiry Committee meets to review the allegation of research misconduct and plan the inquiry. The inquiry should be completed within 60 calendar days after the start date unless circumstances warrant a longer period.  If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days to complete, the RIO will inform the VPR and the Respondent of the basis for the extension and the inquiry report will document the reasons for exceeding 60 days.

Determination Concerning Inquiry:  At the completion of the inquiry the Inquiry Committee shall determine whether the allegation of research misconduct warrants or does not warrant an investigation.

An investigation is warranted if the Inquiry Committees determines by a majority vote of the appointed voting members that there is a reasonable basis for concluding the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct, involves biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training, and the preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact finding from the inquiry indicates the allegation may have substance.

The Committee will prepare a draft report that includes:

  1. The name and position of the Respondent(s);
  2. Copies of the notification of inquiry to the Respondent(s);
  3. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct;
  4. Sources of research support including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the agency’s support;
  5. A summary of the evidence reviewed and interviews conducted;
  6. The conclusion of the inquiry and the basis for recommending that the allegation of research misconduct warrants or does not warrant an investigation.

A copy of the draft report will be provided to the Complainant(s) and Respondent(s).  The Complainant(s) and Respondent(s) will have 14 calendar days to provide written comment on the findings of the inquiry. The time to provide comments may be extended at the discretion of the RIO  Any written comments shall be reviewed by the Inquiry Committee in order to evaluate whether any substantively new information has been provided that should be considered before the Inquiry Committee makes a final decision on a recommendation. The comments will be included as part of the final report.

A copy of the final report will be provided to the VPR, the Respondent(s), and the Complainant(s).

If the Inquiry Committee does not find an investigation is warranted, the University shall make reasonable and practical efforts effort to protect or restore the position and reputation of the Respondent(s), Complainant(s), witnesses and committee members and to counter potential or actual retaliation against them. If the Respondent so requests, the conclusions of the inquiry will be made public.  Once this is completed, the research misconduct proceeding will be closed.

Agency Notification:  If the Inquiry Committee finds an investigation is warranted, the RIO will provide agencies having a statutory right of notification, a final copy of the inquiry report.  The agencies will be provided the inquiry report within 30 days of the Inquiry Committee submitting the final report to the VPR, but before initiating the investigation.  Upon request, the RIO will provide to agencies having statutory right of notification, copies of the research records and evidence reviewed.

Early Termination of research misconduct Proceedings – Admission of research misconduct

If at any point, other than a finding that an Inquiry or Investigation is not warranted, University plans to terminate a Research Misconduct Proceeding before its completion on the basis that the Respondent(s) has admitted to committing research misconduct, a settlement with the Respondent(s) has been reached, or for any other reason, the RIO will promptly notify the VPR and the applicable federal agency of the University’s plan, and seek approval of the plan from the agency.

If the Respondent(s) admits to committing research misconduct, appropriate University Actions as described in this Policy will be applied.

Conduct of an Investigation

The purpose of an investigation is (i) to determine whether research misconduct did or did not occur for each separate identified allegation, (ii) if misconduct was found, to identify the misconduct as falsification, fabrication or plagiarism (iii) to determine whether it was intentional, knowing or in reckless disregard, (iv) to identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct and (v) to summarize the facts and the analysis supporting the conclusions. An investigation will be initiated within 30 days of the Inquiry Committee’s determination that an investigation is warranted.

Appointment of SRB:  The VPR will appoint a Special Review Board or SRB.

Any member of the SRB who believes he/she may have a conflict of interest or the appearance of one must declare such. Any member of the committee may identify other SRB member(s) as having a conflict of interest.  The VPR will review any declared or identified potential conflicts of interest and make the determination regarding the member’s participation on the SRB.

The Complainant(s) and Respondent(s) will be provided with a roster of the SRB membership, and given the opportunity to identify committee member(s) as having a conflict of interest.  The VPR will review any identified potential conflicts of interest and make the determination regarding the member’s participation on the SRB.

In the event a member becomes unable or unwilling at any point to serve, the VPR may appoint a replacement member.

Notification of Investigation:  The RIO will notify the Complainant(s) and Respondent(s) in writing that an investigation will be initiated, and of the composition of the SRB.  The notification to the Respondent(s) will also include any new allegations of research misconduct that may have been raised during the course of the inquiry or any allegations that may have been dropped from the inquiry.

Timeline for the Investigation:  The date of initiation of the investigation will be the first date the SRB meets to review the allegations of research misconduct and plan its investigation.  The investigation, including any appeals, should be completed within 120 calendar days of its initiation. If circumstances prevent the SRB from completing the investigation within 120 days, the RIO will submit a written request for an extension of time to complete the investigation to the VPR and any applicable oversight agency.

Conduct of the Investigation:  The SRB will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations.  The SRB will evaluate the report of the Inquiry Committee and examine the evidence and research records relevant to the allegation of research misconduct.  The SRB and/or counsel for the SRB will interview each Respondent(s), Complainant(s), and any other available witness (es) reasonably identified as having information regarding relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent(s).  Interviews will be recorded or transcribed and provided to the interviewee for correction. The SRB will diligently pursue all substantive issues and discovered leads that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.

Respondent’s Rights:  During the investigation the Respondent(s) has the right to:

  1. Be interviewed by the SRB;
  2. Be represented at his/her own expense by legal counsel and/or be accompanied by a union representative. Counsel and the union representative will serve in a role consistent with an investigatory interview, but will not materially disrupt the process.
  3. Expect the SRB to exercise reasonable perseverance in obtaining answers to written questions raised by the Respondent(s) and directed to the Complainant(s) or to those witnesses who provide testimony to the SRB;
  4. To identify witnesses;
  5. Review a copy of the transcript of the Respondent(s)’s testimony for accuracy;
  6. Review and comment upon a draft of the SRB’s report before the report is finalized and before the SRB makes a final decision on its findings

Evidentiary Standards:  A finding of research misconduct requires that a majority of the appointed voting members of the SRB determine, by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the Respondent significantly departed from accepted practices of the relevant research community, and (2) the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

The University or applicable federal agency has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. The destruction, absence of, or Respondent(s)’s failure to provide research records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the University establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent(s) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the Respondent(s)’s conduct with regard to such records constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

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

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

Preparation of a Draft Report and Preliminary Findings:  Upon the completion of the Investigation, the SRB will prepare a written draft report of the investigation containing its preliminary findings. The draft Report will include:

  1. A description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct;
  2. The research project’s funding support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support;
  3. A description of the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the Investigation.
  4. Copies of the University policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted;
  5. An identification and summary of the research records and evidence reviewed, and identification of any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed;
  6. For each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the Investigation, a preliminary finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur, and if so:
    1. Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard;
    2. Summarize the facts and the analysis which support the preliminary conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent;;
    3. Identify the specific funding support;
    4. Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;
    5. Identify the person(s) responsible for the research misconduct;
    6. List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the Respondent(s) has pending with all extramural agencies.

The draft report will be provided to the Complainant(s) and Respondent(s) for comment.  The comments of the Respondent(s) and Complainant(s) on the draft report, if any, must be submitted within 30 days of their receipt of the draft report.  If requested, the Respondent(s) will be provided another opportunity to be heard by the SRB in person and to provide any additional information, or call additional witnesses to provide new information that may have a bearing on the SRB’s preliminary findings. The SRB will take into consideration any additional written information or information provided by witnesses.

Final Report and Final Findings:  If written comments on the draft report are received, the SRB will consider the comments. The SRB will then make its final decision and prepare a final report of the investigation. In addition to the elements of the draft report, the final report will include any written comments provided by Respondent or Complainant, a transcript or recording of the final hearing with the SRB (if any), and any new information provided by the Respondent(s) or Complainant.

Within twenty (20) business days of receipt of the SRB’s final report, the VPR shall inform the SRB of a decision to accept the report, or return it to the SRB for additional consideration. In the latter case, a decision not to accept the report will be accompanied by an explanation as to why the report was not accepted. The SRB will consider the VPR’s explanation, and resubmit the final report. The VPR will then make a final decision on whether the Respondent committed research misconduct.

If the VPR determines that the Respondent(s) did not commit research misconduct, the University shall make reasonable and practical efforts effort to protect or restore the position and reputation of the Respondent(s), Complainant(s), witnesses and committee members and to counter potential or actual retaliation against them.

If the VPR determines that the Respondent(s) committed research misconduct, the VPR will proceed in accordance with “University Actions in Response to a Final Finding of Research Misconduct” below.   If the research in question involved human subjects, the VPR will notify the Institutional Review Board. If the research in question involved animal subjects, the VPR will notify the Institutional Animal Care Committee.

Notifications:  After the VPR makes a final decision, the RIO shall send the final Report to the Respondent(s), the VPR, the Respondent(s)’s Dean and Department Head, the AVPRC, the President of the University of Connecticut, the Office of Audit, Compliance & Ethics, and applicable federal and/or state agencies.

Interim Protective Actions

At any time during the research misconduct proceedings the VPR may take appropriate interim actions to protect public health, federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the research process.  Necessary actions will vary according to the circumstances of each case and may include but are not limited to delaying the publication of research results or submission of funding proposals, requiring supervision of one or more researchers, requiring approvals for actions relating to the research that did not previously require approval, auditing pertinent records, or contacting other institutions that may be affected by the allegation of research misconduct.

The relevant University Officials and federal agencies will be immediately notified if there is reason to believe any of the following conditions exist at any time during the research misconduct proceedings:

  1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
  2. Federal resources or interests are threatened;
  3. Research activities should be suspended;
  4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
  5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those  involved  in  the  research misconduct Proceeding;
  6. The University believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely so that the federal government may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved;
  7. The research community or public should be informed.

University Actions in Response to a Final Finding of Research Misconduct

If the VPR determines that the Respondent committed research misconduct, the matter will be referred to the relevant supervisor who will review the report with the Office of Faculty and Staff Labor Relations.  Any action that is imposed by the University will comply with the procedures set forth in the University By-Laws or other applicable polices and any applicable collective bargaining agreement, including any right to appeal such actions.   Actions that may be imposed include but are not limited to:

  • Notification to professional and/or scientific societies
  • Clarification, correction, or retraction of the research record
  • Education or training
  • Reassignment of duties
  • Restrictions of specific activities or expenditures
  • Oversight or supervision of research activities
  • Special review of research activities
  • Termination or restriction of research support
  • Termination of fellowship support
  • Adjustment of research space allocation or resources
  • Adjustment of salary
  • Letter of warning or reprimand
  • Suspension
  • Dismissal

The University will cooperate with and assist in carrying out any administrative actions imposed by a relevant federal agency as a result of a final finding of research misconduct by that agency.

Retention and Custody of Records of the Research Misconduct Process

All records of the research misconduct process and any institutional appeals will be kept secure by the RIO according to the State of Connecticut Records Retention Schedule or seven (7) years, whichever is longer. If required by federal regulation, documentation of the SRB’s investigation will be made available to the appropriate federal oversight office.

Cooperation with Federal Agencies

The University will cooperate with any federal agency with appropriate jurisdiction during its oversight reviews of the University and its research misconduct proceedings, and during the process under which the Respondent may contest the federal agency’s finding of research misconduct and proposed administrative actions.  This includes providing, as necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence, research records, and other evidence under the University’s control or custody, or in the possession of, or accessible to persons subject to University authority.

The University will report to any federal agency with appropriate jurisdiction any proposed settlements, admissions of research misconduct, or institutional findings of misconduct that arise at any stage of a misconduct proceeding.

Promulgation of the Policy for Review of Alleged Misconduct of Research

This Policy will be made available via the University website.

(Signed)
_________________
Radenka Maric, Ph.D.
Vice President for Research

Policy History

Revised 9/15/2017 [Approved by President’s Cabinet]

 

Pre-Employment Criminal Background Check Policy

Title: Pre-Employment Criminal Background Check Policy
Policy Owner: Department of Human Resources and Office of Faculty and Staff Labor Relations
Applies to: Faculty, Staff, Others
Campus Applicability:  Storrs and Regional Campuses
Effective Date: January 8, 2014
For More Information, Contact Department of Human Resources
Contact Information: (860) 486-3034
Official Website: http://hr.uconn.edu/cbc/

 

BACKGROUND

The University of Connecticut prides itself on hiring qualified employees who are prepared to work in the best interests of the University and its students.  Pre-employment criminal background checks serve as an important element of the University’s ongoing efforts to ensure a safe and secure campus and workplace.  Criminal history information can identify prospective employees who may be predisposed to engage in violence, sexual misconduct, misappropriate of resources, identity theft, data breaches and other misconduct.

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to the following:

  • All full-time and part-time final candidates for employment in regular payroll positions (faculty, professional, and classified).
  • All individuals selected for temporary appointments as Adjunct Faculty, Special Payroll Lecturers, and Instructional Specialists that are not dually employed at the University or that have had a break in University service for more than two consecutive semesters.

At the specific request of the hiring department, other prospective special payroll appointments or volunteers may be subject to a criminal background check when the special payroll or volunteer position is a position of trust or when required by law to perform a criminal background check.

Employees who are already employed at the University and apply for transfer or promotion are not covered by this Policy.

 

GENERAL POLICY

It will be a condition of employment at the University of Connecticut to submit to a criminal background check.  Offers of employment will be conditional pending the result of a background check, which shall include, at a minimum, the following:

  • Social Security Number Verification / Past Address Trace
  • Statewide criminal history (where applicable)
  • County Criminal
  • National Criminal
  • Federal Criminal
  • Statewide Sex Offender
  • Nationwide Sex Offender
  • International Criminal (where applicable)

Pre-Employment criminal background checks will be centrally administered by the Department of Human Resources.

Pre-employment criminal background checks and the use of criminal history information will be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Procedures on the pre-employment criminal background check process are available at: http://hr.uconn.edu/cbc/

Reimbursement of Moving Expenses Policy and Procedures

Title: Reimbursement of Moving Expenses Policy and Procedures
Policy Owner: Committee formed by the Office of the Provost
Applies to: Faculty
Campus Applicability:  All Programs at all Campuses except UConn Health
Effective Date: November 21, 2014
For More Information, Contact Workforce Solutions / Office of the Provost
Contact Information: (860) 486-3034
Official Website:  http://hr.uconn.edu/

This policy is currently under revision. While the policy is still in effect, it should be noted that the tax law changed January 1, 2018 and now ALL moving reimbursements are taxable and will be reported by Payroll in your earnings.

Reason for Policy

The University recognizes the competitive nature of the hiring process and therefore grants departments the flexibility to pay for or reimburse moving expenses for faculty or management-exempt administrator positions.

Policy Statement

The hiring process includes three phases: interview, offer and acceptance, and move.

The final phase, the move, begins the date of the final one-way trip of the selected candidate and their family to their new residence. The move phase ends upon the day of arrival.  As stated in more detail below, expenses incurred in connection with the move phase are reimbursable to the employee.

Individuals should refer to the Reimbursement of Recruitment Expenses Policy for guidance regarding appropriate payment or reimbursement of expenses related to the interview and offer and acceptance phases.

Consistent with IRS regulations the following are considered Nontaxable Expenses that are eligible for reimbursement, up to the amount authorized in advance by the hiring department in accordance with the limitations set forth in this policy.

  1. Moving of household goods and personal effects (packing, crating and transporting);
  2. Actual expenses for gas and oil OR Standard IRS moving mileage rate based on most direct route;
  3. Parking fees;
  4. Tolls;
  5. Lodging for the employee and their immediate family while traveling from former residence to new residence, including the day of arrival (please refer to the Travel and Entertainment Policies and Procedures for guidelines regarding accommodations).
  6. Storage of household goods after arrival; not to exceed 30 consecutive days after the day your things are moved from the former residence;
  7. Airfare (please refer to the Travel and Entertainment Policies and Procedures for guidelines regarding approved class of travel);
  8. Shipping of car;
  9. Shipping of household pets;
  10. Car rental through and including the day of arrival

The following are considered Taxable Expenses that are eligible for reimbursement, up to the amount authorized in advance by the hiring department in accordance with the limitations set forth in this policy.  Reimbursement of Nonqualified Expenses is subject to withholding of applicable income, social security and Medicare taxes; these expenses are included in taxable income and reported on the annual Form W-2.

  1. Meals;
  2. Lodging outside of the nontaxable time frame;
  3. Storage of household goods outside of the nontaxable time frame;
  4. Car rental outside of nontaxable timeframe.

The following expenses will not be reimbursed by the University:

  1. Entertainment;
  2. Side trips, sightseeing;
  3. Violations (parking tickets, moving violations, etc.);
  4. Return trips to former residence;
  5. Expenses related to prior residence;
  6. General repairs or maintenance of vehicle resulting from self-move.

If employment with the University ends prior to working at least 39 weeks full-time in the first year after arriving, he/she will be required to pay back the University for all moving expense reimbursements received.

Moving expenses are weighted by the rank of the position and the distance of the move (see table below).

The allowance for a particular move constitutes the maximum commitment for reimbursement of University and/or Foundation funds, rather than an entitlement of the employee.

Procedure

All requests for moving expenses will identify the fund source, including any commitment to use private funds.

Reimbursements using UConn Foundation funds, or other private sources, will be remitted to the University and paid to the employee as if they were University funds and in accordance with this policy. Department funds may also be used to pay for moving expense reimbursements.

Payments exceeding the reimbursement schedule, or for purposes other than those herein specified, may be granted upon recommendation of the President or Provost. The President will recommend payment of any moving expenses for another Officer of the University to the Board, and the Chairman of the Board will make such recommendations for the moving expenses of the President.

The formula for determining the amount to be reimbursed is based on the rank of the position and on the distance of the move. The sum of these two represents the maximum reimbursement allowed.

Rank Weight Base Rank Total
Assistant Professor 1 x $1000 $1000
Associate Professor 2 x $1000 $2000
Professor 3 x $1000 $3000
Dept. Head/Director/Assoc. VP 4 x $1000 $4000
Dean/Vice President 5 x $1000 $5000

The distance factor is calculated on the mileage of the move as follows:

Mileage Base
< 500 Miles $350
< 1,000 Miles $700
< 1,500 Miles $1,050
< 2,000 Miles $1,400
< 2,500 Miles $2,100

 

After identifying a valid account number, department heads should sign and forward a written request for moving expenses to the dean/director for approval and signature.

Once Dean, Director or Department Head approval has been received, the department should notify the candidate of the approval and amount authorized.

The candidate may then proceed in either of the following ways:

A. Direct Payment by the University

The University has a contract with a moving broker (with access to 10 different moving companies) who bills the University directly up to the approved amount. See the UConn Landing Page   for more information.

Departments wishing to use one of the movers provided through the moving broker should follow the procedure below:

1. The department should provide the employee with the moving broker’s name, telephone number, and landing page and instruct them to obtain and select a written and signed quotation. The moving broker can provide up to three quotations from which the employee can select. The selected quotation must include a statement of the departure and destination points for the move. A “not to exceed” quote can be provided with some limitations.

2. The employee should forward the quotation to their department, indicating their vendor preference. (The University assumes no liability for damage or loss, and because the employee is personally responsible for expenses exceeding the amount approved by the University, vendor selection is the employee’s decision).

3. The department should obtain a signed copy of the quotation, a signed copy of the Moving Expense Request Form (ME13), and enter a requisition into KFS identifying the moving broker, the amount the University will pay, the moving date, and the departure/destination points.  Once Procurement Services receives all required information, a purchase order will be issued.

4. A purchase order will be sent to the moving broker authorizing it to invoice the University up to the amount approved. All charges in excess will be the employee’s responsibility.

B. Reimbursement

The employee may, if so desired, make arrangements with a moving company of his/her choice or self-move. Employees may request reimbursement of out of pocket expenses up to the amount authorized by this policy and for other permissible items. A Request for Reimbursement of Moving Expenses and Moving Expense Reimbursement form (ME13) should be completed by the Department for approval by the Dean, Director or Department Head.  The Department Head’s signature acknowledges that the expenses requested are reimbursable under this policy. Departments should forward these forms and original receipts to the appropriate office to obtain the second approval signature.  Reimbursement requests that do not have the required two signatures will not be processed.

The Dean, Director or Department Head will forward the approved package to the Payroll Department, which will review the documents to ensure compliance with this policy. Taxes will be applied for any portion of the authorized reimbursement that is taxable as described in this policy.

NOTE: As described in this policy, employees will be reimbursed for the shortest, most direct route available. Travel incurred for side trips or vacations en route, etc. may proportionally reduce the amount reimbursed.

Approval

The Board of Trustees originally approved the Reimbursement of Recruitment and Moving Expenses Policy on July 1, 2003. The Board of Trustees approved the Reimbursement of Moving Expenses Policy and Procedures on August 7, 2013.

Revisions: November 21, 2014

Vendor Code of Conduct

Title: Vendor Code of Conduct
Policy Owner: President’s Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility
Applies to: Others
Campus Applicability:  Storrs, and Regional Campuses
Effective Date: January 9, 2013
For More Information, Contact Leslie Langworthy
Contact Information: (860) 486-5898
Official Website: http://www.csr.uconn.edu/

The University of Connecticut (“UConn”) has a longstanding commitment to the protection and advancement of socially responsible practices that reflect respect for fundamental human rights and the dignity of all people. UConn strives to promote basic human rights and appropriate labor standards for all people throughout its supply chain. Promoting these values in concrete practice is the central charge of the President’s Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility (http://csr.uconn.edu/).

UConn is also committed to  building a safe, healthy and sustainable environment through the conservation of natural resources, increasing its use of environmentally responsible products, materials and services (including renewable resources), and preventing pollution and minimizing waste through reduction, reuse and recycling. UConn is proactive about purchasing products that have these environmental attributes or meet recognized environmental standards, when practicable, and buying from entities committed to the support of campus sustainability goals.  The University seeks to partner and contract with vendors that demonstrate a similar commitment to these values. Selected vendors may be required to provide a comprehensive summary report of their corporate social and environmental practices.

Principal Expectations

The principal expectations set forth below reflect the minimal standards UConn’s vendors are required to meet.

Nondiscrimination. It is expected that vendors will not discriminate in hiring, employment, salary, benefits, advancement, discipline, termination or retirement on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, nationality, ethnicity, alienage, age, disability or marital status, and will comply with all federal nondiscrimination laws and state nondiscrimination laws[1], including Chapter 814c of the Connecticut General Statutes (Human Rights and Opportunities), as applicable, and further will provide equal employment opportunity irrespective of such characteristics, including complying, if applicable, with Federal Executive Order 1124b, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining. It is expected that vendors will respect their employees’ rights of free association and collective bargaining, including, if applicable, complying with the National Labor Relations Act, and, if applicable, Chapters 561 and 562 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Labor Relations Act, Labor Disputes) and Chapters 67 and 68 of the Connecticut General Statutes (State Personnel Act, Collective Bargaining for State Employees).

Labor Standard Regarding Wages, Hours, Leaves and Child Labor. It is expected that vendors will respect their employees’ rights regarding minimum and prevailing wages, payment of wages, maximum hours and overtime, legally mandated family, child birth and medical leaves, and return to work thereafter, and limitations on child labor, including, if applicable, the rights set forth in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act, the Federal Davis-Bacon Act and Chapters 557 and 558 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Employment Regulation, Wages).

Health and Safety. It is expected that vendors will provide safe and healthful working and training environments in order to prevent accidents and injury to health, including reproductive health, arising out of or related to or occurring during the course of the work vendors perform or resulting from the operation of vendors’ facilities. Accordingly, it is expected that vendors and their subcontractors will perform work pursuant to UConn contracts in compliance with, as applicable, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Chapter 571 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Occupational Safety and Health Act).

Forced Labor. It is expected that vendors will not use or purchase supplies or materials that are produced using any illegal form of forced labor.

Harassment or Abuse. It is expected that vendors will treat all employees with dignity and respect, and that no employee will be subjected to any physical, sexual, psychological or verbal abuse or harassment.  It is further expected that vendors will not use or tolerate the use of any form of corporal punishment.

Environmental Compliance. It is expected that vendors will comply with all applicable federal and state environmental laws and Executive Orders, including but not limited to Titles 22a and 25 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Environmental Protection and Water Resources protection) and Executive Order 14 (concerning safe cleaning products and services). UConn expects vendors will employ environmentally responsible practices in the provision of their products and services.

Preferential Standards

The preferential standards set forth below reflect UConn’s core values. UConn will seek to uphold these values by considering them as relevant factors in selecting vendors.

Living Wages. UConn recognizes and affirms that reasonable living wages are vital to ensuring that the essential needs of employees and their families can be met, and that such needs include basic food, shelter, clothing, health care, education and transportation.  UConn seeks to do business with vendors that provide living wages so as to meet these basic needs, and further recognizes that compensation may need to be periodically adjusted to ensure maintenance of such living wages.  Vendors are encouraged to demonstrate that they pay such living wages.

International Human Rights. For UConn, respect for human rights is a core value.  UConn seeks to do business with vendors who do not contribute to or benefit from systemic violations of recognized international human rights and labor standards, as exemplified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Foreign Law. UConn encourages vendors and vendors’ suppliers operating under foreign law to comply with those foreign laws that address the subject matters of this code, provided such foreign laws are consistent with this code. Vendors and their suppliers operating under foreign law are similarly encouraged to comply with the provisions of this code to the extent they can do so without violating the foreign law(s) they operate under.

Environmental Sustainability. UConn will prefer products and services that conserve resources, save energy and use safer chemicals, such as recycled, recyclable, reusable, energy efficient, carbon-neutral, organic, biodegradable or plant-based, in addition to products that are durable and easily reparable, and that meet relevant certification standards above and beyond those required by law. While UConn is not legally bound to comply with Connecticut General Statutes 4a-67a through 4a-67h concerning environmental sustainability standards in purchasing, it will nevertheless consider vendors’ ability to meet those standards in rendering its purchasing decisions. Vendors are encouraged to demonstrate their commitment to environmental sustainability.

Compliance Procedures

Anyone who believes a vendor doing business with UConn has not complied or is not complying with this code may contact the University’s REPORTLINE at 1-888-685-2637 or https://uconncares.alertline.com/gcs/welcome.  The REPORTLINE is operated by a private (non-University) company. No effort is made to identify the person reporting and no trace of the call is performed. Information received is given to the Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics, who will evaluate the concerns raised and, if necessary, refer the matter to the most appropriate University office for review.

The Office of University Compliance has the authority to investigate such matters, and if warranted, recommend remedial action to the UConn administration.


[1] Wherever this code refers to compliance with federal or state laws, that term includes compliance with any regulations duly promulgated pursuant to such laws.

Policy Created: January 7, 2013 (Approved by the President’s Cabinet)

Revised: July 14, 2015

Parking and Vehicles on the Grounds of the University of Connecticut, Rules and Regulations for the Control of

Title: Rules and Regulations for Control of Parking and Vehicles on the Grounds of the University of Connecticut
Policy Owner: Transportation, Logistics, and Parking Services
Applies to: Faculty, Staff, Students, Visitors
Campus Applicability:  Storrs and Regional Campuses
Effective Date: July 11, 2017
For More Information, Contact Transportation, Logistics and Parking Services
Contact Information: (860) 486- 3628
Official Website: https://park.uconn.edu/

The complete Rules and Regulations for the Control of Parking and Vehicles on Campus (Revised 11.21.18) are available in PDF.

Approved by the Board of Trustees on August 8, 2012.

Revised July 11, 2017 and approved by the President’s Cabinet.

Working Alone Policy

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

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

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.

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)

Incident Response, Information Technology

Title: Incident Response, Information Technology
Policy Owner: Information Security Office
Applies to: Students, Employees, Users
Campus Applicability:  All Campuses, Except UConn Health
Effective Date: May 16, 2012
For More Information, Contact Chief Information Security Officer
Contact Information: (860) 486-8255
Official Website: http://security.uconn.edu/

This policy is available in the Information Security Policy Manual.

The Information Security Office (ISO) will establish, document, and distribute an Incident Response Plan to ensure timely and effective handling of security incidents involving information technology (IT) resources.

University employees with IT responsibilities are responsible for understanding and following the University’s Incident Response Plan.

Suspected and confirmed security incidents, their resolution steps, and their outcomes shall be documented by those directly involved. The ISO will ensure that incidents are appropriately logged and archived.

Procedures

All employees must immediately report lost or stolen technology resources to the University Police Department (860-486-4800), the Information Security Office (860-486-8255), and the University’s Office of the Controller (860-486-2937).

Policy Created: May 16, 2012