Environmental Policy Statement

October 1, 2014

Title:	Environmental Policy Statement
Policy Owner:	Office of Sustainability
Applies to:	Faculty, Staff, Students, Senior Administrators
Campus Applicability:	Storrs based system
Effective Date:	January 2007
For More Information, Contact	Office of Sustainability
Contact Information:	(860) 486-8741
Official Website:	http://ecohusky.uconn.edu

In fulfilling its mission as Connecticut’s land grant, public research university and its corresponding obligation to protect and preserve natural resources for an environmentally sustainable future, the University of Connecticut commits to the following principles of environmental leadership:

Performance: The University will institutionalize best practices, comply with environmental laws, regulations and standards, and continually monitor, report on and improve its environmental performance.

Responsible management and growth: The University will endeavor to design, construct and maintain its buildings, infrastructure and grounds in a manner that ensures environmental sustainability and protects public health and safety.

Outreach: The University will promote environmental stewardship in Connecticut and embrace environmental initiatives in partnership with its surrounding communities.

Academics: The University will advance understanding of the environment through its curriculum, research and other academic programs, and will employ an ethic of environmental stewardship in all intellectual pursuits.

Conservation: The University will conserve natural resources, increase its use of environmentally sustainable products, materials and services, including renewable resources, and prevent pollution and minimize wastes through reduction, reuse and recycling.

Teamwork: The University will encourage teamwork and provide groups and individuals with support, guidance and recognition for achieving shared environmental goals.
Adopted April 22, 2004 (rev. Jan. 2007)

Security Camera Policy

September 30, 2014

Title:	Security Camera Policy
Policy Owner:	Division of Public Safety & Office of the General Counsel
Applies to:	Faculty, Staff
Campus Applicability:	Storrs, Regionals, and the School of Law
Effective Date:	September 12, 2014
For More Information, Contact	Director of Public Safety
Contact Information:	(860) 486-4806
Official Website:	http://publicsafety.uconn.edu

I. Scope

This policy applies to the University of Connecticut at Storrs, the University’s regional campuses and the University’s School of Law. The determination of whether a facility leased by the University, whether as lessor or lessee, will be subject to this policy will be made by the Chief of Police on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors including the location of the facility, facility attributes, and the terms of the pertinent lease agreement.

This policy applies to all faculty and staff employed by, and to all schools and departments within, the University. This policy shall not apply to use of cameras for reasons unrelated to surveillance activity, including remote monitoring of facilities construction and progress, videotaping of athletic events for post-game reviews, the use of cameras in connection with human subject and animal research (which use shall be governed by University policies governing research) the use of cameras in certain laboratories to ensure safe research practices, and the use of cameras for legitimate educational purposes. Nor shall this policy apply to cameras used by law enforcement in the following manners: covert operations for the purpose of criminal surveillance; or mobile cameras used in, on, or about law enforcement or parking services vehicles; or body-worn or otherwise portable cameras used during the course of investigations or normal law enforcement functions; or parking enforcement cameras.

II. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the use of security cameras on property owned and/or utilized by the University in a way that enhances security and aids law enforcement while respecting the privacy expectations of members of the University community.

The primary purpose of utilizing security cameras in public areas is to deter crime and to assist law enforcement in enhancing the safety and security of members of the University community and University property. The primary use of security cameras will be to record video images for use by law enforcement and other University officials charged with investigating alleged violations of law or University policy.

The existence of this policy does not imply or guarantee that security cameras will be monitored in real time continuously or otherwise.

III. RELATED POLICIES

Acceptable Use, Information Technology
University Code of Conduct
General Rules of Conduct
The Student Code

IV. Definitions

As used within and for the purposes of this policy, the following terms are defined as follows.

Chief of Police: the head of the Division of Public Safety or his or her designee.

Private areas: areas in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to,non-common areas of residence halls, residence hall corridors, bathrooms, shower areas, locker and changing rooms and other areas where a reasonable person might change clothes. Additionally, areas designed for the personal comfort of University employees or the safeguarding of their possessions, such as lounges and locker rooms, and areas dedicated to medical, physical, or mental therapy or treatment shall be considered private areas for the purpose of this policy.

Public areas: areas made available for use by the public, including, but not limited to, campus grounds, parking areas, building exteriors, loading docks, areas of ingress and egress, classrooms, lecture halls, study rooms, lobbies, theaters, libraries, dining halls, gymnasiums, recreation areas, and retail establishments. Areas of the University in which persons would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but to which access is restricted to certain University employees, such as storage areas, shall also be considered public areas for the purpose of this policy.

Security camera: a camera used for monitoring or recording public areas for the purposes of enhancing public safety, discouraging theft and other criminal activities, and investigating incidents.
Security camera recording: a digital or analog recording of the feed from a security camera.

Security camera system: any electronic service, software, or hardware directly supporting or deploying a security camera.

V. Responsibilities and Authority

Responsibility for oversight of installation, maintenance, and utilization of security cameras and associated policies, standards, and procedures is delegated by the President of the University to the Chief of Police. This responsibility includes:

creation, maintenance, and review of a campus strategy for the procurement, deployment, and use of security cameras, including this and related policies;
designation of the standard campus security camera system or service;
authorizing the placement of all security cameras;
authorizing the purchase of any new security camera systems;
reviewing existing security camera systems and installations and identifying modifications required to bring them into compliance with this policy;
creating and approving campus standards for security cameras and their use; and
creating and approving procedures for the use of security cameras.

VI. Control Elements

VI.1 Training

All personnel involved in the installation, maintenance or monitoring of security cameras: (a) will be instructed in the technical, legal and ethical parameters of appropriate camera use; and (b) will receive a copy of this policy and provide a written acknowledgment that they have read and understood its contents.

VI.2 Security Camera Placement

University Police shall be solely responsible for the oversight of temporary or permanent security cameras on campus. As such, all installations must be approved by them. Schools, departments and offices desiring the installation and use of security cameras shall submit a request for such installation to University Police. All proposals for the deployment of security cameras will include proposed sites for the placement of notifying signs (see Section VI.3. below). Installation of video security applications shall be the financial responsibility of the requesting school, department or office.
University schools, departments and offices presently utilizing security cameras shall promptly advise the University Police Department, which will review the location and utilization of the cameras and identify actions necessary to bring such usage into conformance with this policy.
Consistent with the requirements of state law, security cameras utilized by the University will not record or monitor sound. Audio recordings shall be prohibited unless permitted by law and specifically authorized by the Chief of Police.
Use of security cameras shall be limited to public areas. Video surveillance shall be not conducted in private areas of the campus unless specifically authorized by the Chief of Police pursuant to a search warrant or otherwise. If needed, electronic shielding will be placed in the security camera so that the security camera cannot be used to look into or through windows into private areas.
Where Security Cameras are permitted in private areas, they will, to the maximum extent possible, be used narrowly to protect persons, money, real or personal property, documents, supplies, equipment, or pharmaceuticals from theft, destruction, or tampering.
Security cameras shall not be directed at the windows of any privately-owned residence not located on University property.
Inoperative, placebo, or “dummy” security cameras shall NEVER be installed or utilized, as they may lead to a false sense of security that someone is monitoring an operational camera.

VI.3 Security Camera Monitoring and Review

The University Police may monitor and review security camera feeds and recordings as needed to support investigations and to enhance public safety. It is not intended or expected that security cameras will be routinely monitored in real time.
With the prior approval of the Chief of Police, other University personnel may monitor and review security camera live feeds and recordings for purposes of public safety.
Monitoring individuals based on characteristics of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected classification is prohibited. Seeking out and continuously viewing people becoming intimate in public areas is prohibited.

VI.4 Notification Requirements

Except in emergency or investigative situations, all locations with security cameras will have signs displayed that provide reasonable notification of the presence of security cameras. The placement of the signs and the text on the signs will be subject to the approval of the Chief of Police.

Notification signs shall be placed in conspicuous areas in close proximity to the security cameras. For buildings with interior cameras, this shall include, at a minimum, the placement of signs at all primary building entrances. All such signs shall contain a notification that the cameras may or may not be monitored.

VI.5 Use of Recordings

Security camera recordings, with the approval of the Chief of Police, shall be used for the purposes of enhancing public safety, discouraging theft and other criminal activities, and investigating incidents (including the release of recordings by the Division of Public Safety to external law enforcement agencies). Recordings from cameras whose primary function is not security (such as classroom lecture capture) may, with the authorization of the Chief of Police, be used for these purposes.

Security cameras shall not be utilized to conduct personnel investigations, such as those related to (but not limited to) work place attendance or work quality. However, the University may utilize routine security camera recordings in support of disciplinary proceedings against employees and/or students, or in a civil suit or other proceeding involving person(s) whose activities are shown on the recording and relate to the proceeding. For example, the situation could be an arbitration or other proceeding and the proceeding could be by or against such person. Information obtained in violation of this policy may not be used in a disciplinary proceeding against a University student or employee.

The use of security cameras and/or recordings for any purpose not detailed within this policy is subject to including §6 of the campus policy on the Appropriate Use of Computers and Network Systems.

Records of access to and release of, Security Camera recordings must be sufficient so as to demonstrate compliance with this policy.

VI.6 Protection and Retention of Security Camera Recordings

Video footage will be stored on servers accorded appropriate computer security with access by authorized personnel only.

Security camera recordings will be retained in accordance with the records retention policies of the State of Connecticut. This retention period may be extended at the direction of the General Counsel or the Chief of Police or as required by law.

VI.7 Release of Recorded Material

Requests for release of recorded material must be approved by the Chief of Police. Requests for release of recorded material set forth in subpoenas or other legal documents compelling disclosure should be submitted to the General Counsel.

VII. Compliance

It shall be the responsibility of the Chief of Police to see that records related to the use of security cameras and recordings from security cameras are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this policy. Units that maintain or support security camera technology must also maintain records and configure systems to ensure compliance with this policy. Before procuring security camera systems, units will need to ensure compatibility with the system identified as the campus standard by the Chief of Police.

The Chief Information Officer, or his or her designee, in conjunction with the Chief of Police, or his or her designee, may review the deployment and utilization of security cameras at the University, whenever and as frequently as they deem necessary. A finding that a school, department or office has failed to comply with the requirements of this policy may result in the loss of its privilege to support, maintain, or deploy security cameras and may result in other remedial action at the direction of the President or the President’s designee.

VIII. Exceptions

Uses of security cameras beyond those described in this security camera policy shall be governed by applicable University policies and procedures. Persons having questions about the use of monitoring cameras not subject to this policy should direct those questions to the Chief of Police or the General Counsel.

IX. REVIEW OF POLICY

This policy will be reviewed, and revised as necessary, by the Department of Public Safety, annually or more frequently as circumstances require.

Facilities Operations & Building Services Guideline for Maintenance and Repair Services (Excludes UConn Health)

July 14, 2014

Title:	Facilities Operations & Building Services Guideline for Maintenance and Repair Services
Policy Owner:	Facilities Operations & Building Services
Applies to:	Faculty, Staff, Students
Campus Applicability:	All Campuses, except UConn Health
Effective Date:	August 18, 2015
For More Information, Contact	Facilities Operations & Building Services
Contact Information:	(860) 486-3138
Official Website:	http://fo.uconn.edu/

Facilities Operations and Building Services strives to provide services in a collaborative, respectful manner working to make our community a better place to study, live and work. This statement’s purpose is to communicate the scope of building maintenance and repair services provided to University of Connecticut community by the Department of Facilities Operations and Building Services.

Facilities Operations and Building Services is committed to providing maintenance and repair services to University-owned facilities for all structural and building systems. This includes all building systems identified on the original blueprints of buildings and those upgrades/modifications made to the original plans and excludes furniture, fixtures and equipment. Occupying units will not be expected to pay for this maintenance and repair.

These services include:

Emergency maintenance: situations that require immediate intervention by trades workers to correct or mitigate a building maintenance problem or which can create unsafe conditions that may expose students, faculty, staff and/or visitors to health or safety related concerns and/or cause significant damage to the building, building systems, or
Preventive maintenance: scheduled maintenance to prevent assets from wearing out/failing and maintain life cycle.
Corrective maintenance: minor repairs to bring asset back into working order.
Statutory maintenance: maintenance and repair to life safety systems; elevators, ADA requirements.
Cyclical maintenance/replacement and updates of building finishes.
Cyclical maintenance/replacement of classroom finishes and furniture.
Basic custodial, snow removal & ice treatment, and landscape services.
Infrastructure services such as water, sewer, steam, chilled water and power.

Facilities Operations and Building Services also provides maintenance and repair services necessitated by the particular operations or equipment of individual units. These services must be funded by the units requesting them. Similarly, Facilities Operations and Building Services is able to provide limited services on a reimbursable basis for small project renovations requested by departments that are cosmetic in nature, change the use purpose of a space, enhance the comfort factor for building occupants/users (ex: convenience kitchens), or mitigate excessive wear and tear on furniture and equipment, etc. The following criteria govern maintenance and repair services for which Facilities Operations and Building Services will charge units:

Work that enhances the aesthetics, alters, or customizes a space for programmatic purposes, or involves a major change to interior finishes.
Maintenance and repair of special classroom equipment; special lighting or sound installations; office furniture and furnishing; laboratory equipment; and other departmental property.
Fabrication of cabinets, shelves, signs, name plates and other miscellaneous items.
Furniture repair (excluding basic classroom furniture) and reupholstering.
Special custodial or trash collection such as daily office cleanings, clean-ups, storage and office cleanouts above normal/routine service levels.
Installation and service of equipment fundamentally required by or used for a unit’s research or other operational activity (such as special fire extinguishing equipment for laboratories, environmental chambers, refrigerators, freezers, autoclaves, spas, pools and uninterruptable power sources).
Services required for the set-up/support of special events.
Moving services.
All facilities planning and design, or other professional services performed by consultants, architects, or engineers, in support of customer-funded projects.
The manufacturer is responsible for fixtures and equipment under warranty. Instances which are covered by valid service agreements are the responsibility of the service agreement holder.
All furniture, fixture and equipment upgrades and replacement costs are the responsibility of the owning unit.

In some cases, it may not be clear whether Facilities Operations and Building Services or the unit should bear the cost of maintenance or repair services. If they are not already addressed in a Service Level Agreement, such instances will be handled through discussion with constituent units, and may ultimately be decided by the Associate Vice president for Facilities Management in consultation with the Vice President to which the unit reports.

Adopted: 12/5/2013

Revised: 06/03/2014; 07/01/2014; 7/15/2014; 8/18/2015

Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy

June 23, 2014

Title:	Satisfactory Academic Progress
Policy Owner:	Office of Student Financial Aid Services
Applies to:	Students
Campus Applicability:	Storrs and Regional Campuses
Approval Date:	August 8, 2025
Effective Date:	August 8, 2025
For More Information, Contact:	Office of Student Financial Aid Services
Contact Information:	860-486-1111
Official Website:	https://financialaid.uconn.edu/sap/

PURPOSE

To ensure continued eligibility for federal, state, and institutional financial aid, the University of Connecticut must assess whether students are making Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) toward the completion of their degree programs. This standard, required by federal regulation, is designed to promote academic success and timely degree completion.

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to all enrolled students at the Storrs and Regional Campuses.

DEFINITIONS

Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP): A set of academic standards students must meet to maintain eligibility for federal, state, and institutional financial aid. SAP is defined by three core standards:

A minimum cumulative grade point average (GPA)
Successful completion of a required percentage of attempted credits (pace of progression)
Completion of the academic program within a maximum timeframe

POLICY STATEMENT

To remain eligible for federal, state, and institutional financial aid, students at the University of Connecticut are required to maintain Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) toward the completion of their degree or certificate program. Students who are found to be in violation of the parameters are ineligible to receive most forms of financial aid.

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.

PROCEDURES

Details on SAP requirements, review cycles, appeal procedures, and reinstatement of aid eligibility can be found at: https://financialaid.uconn.edu/sap/

POLICY HISTORY

Policy created: 07/01/2011 (Approved by President’s Cabinet)

Revisions: 08/08/2025 (Approved by the Senior Policy Council and President)

Policy on Alleged Misconduct in Research

June 6, 2014

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.

Pre-Employment Background Check Policy

January 14, 2014

Title:	Pre-Employment Background Check Policy
Policy Owner:	Human Resources
Applies to:	Faculty, Staff, Others
Campus Applicability:	Storrs and Regional Campuses
Approval Date:	February 27, 2024
Effective Date:	February 29, 2024
For More Information, Contact	Human Resources
Contact Information:	860-486-9302 ; hr-cbc@uconn.edu
Official Website:	https://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 background checks serve as an important element of the University’s ongoing efforts to ensure a safe and secure campus and workplace.

PURPOSE

To ensure a safe and secure campus and workplace

APPLIES TO

This policy applies to the following:

All full-time and part-time final candidates for employment in regular payroll positions, whether newly hired, rehired, or a transfer from another state agency.
All individuals selected for temporary appointments as Adjunct Faculty, Special Payroll Lecturers, Instructional Specialists, Academic Specialists, Academic Technicians, Clinical Supervisors, Graduate Instructional Specialists, and Graduate Special payroll Lecturers that are newly hired or rehired after a break in University service of a year or more and are not currently on the regular payroll.
Other special payroll titles that have direct teaching or advising responsibilities, or are deemed to be in a position of trust, e.g., working with minors.
Graduate students who are working in a teaching capacity as a Special Payroll Lecturer, Instructional Specialist, or other special payroll appointment that has direct teaching or advising responsibilities.

Prospective special payroll appointees or volunteers may be subject to a background check if (1) required by law; (2) required by a third party as a condition for the position, or (3) when considered a position of trust.

POLICY STATEMENT

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

Social Security Number Verification / Past Address Trace
Consent Based Social Security Verification (CBSV) (as applicable)
County/Statewide Criminal (as applicable)
National Criminal/Multi-Jurisdictional Criminal
Federal Criminal
Statewide Sex Offender
Nationwide Sex Offender
International Criminal (as applicable)
Education Verifications
Credit Checks (only required in very limited circumstances)

ENFORCEMENT

Pre-Employment background checks will be centrally administered by Human Resources.

Pre-employment background checks and the use of information obtained will be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

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, and the University of Connecticut Student Code.

PROCEDURES/FORMS

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

POLICY HISTORY

Policy created: January 8, 2014

Revisions: February 27, 2024 (Approved by the Senior Policy Council and the President)

The Provost’s Professional Internship Program for Public Outreach, Service, and Engagement

October 30, 2013

Title:	The Provost’s Professional Internship Program for Public Outreach, Service, and Engagement
Policy Owner:	The Graduate School
Applies to:	Graduate Students
Campus Applicability:
Effective Date:	January 9, 2013
For More Information, Contact	Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean
Contact Information:	860-486-3617
Official Website:	http://grad.uconn.edu/

Graduate students are often supported by a graduate assistantship awarded for performing research or teaching functions at the University. The University covers tuition expenses for those students. In addition, the University may cover tuition expenses of students who are funded by a grant that does not cover the cost of the student’s tuition.

The University recognizes the value of supporting graduate student professional development activities that extend beyond on-campus research and teaching. The Provost may determine that the University will cover tuition expenses for graduate students engaged in other activities directly related to the University’s mission and directly aligned to a student’s academic program of study. The circumstances under which the University will cover tuition expenses and provide a health insurance subsidy for such students are very limited and based on compelling evidence that the activity supports important academic objectives, such as professional internships required as an integral component of a graduate educational program. The Provost will evaluate such activities on a case-by-case basis using the following criteria:

The substantive focus of the graduate internship must serve a clear public service, public outreach, or engagement purpose.
The graduate internship’s objectives must support the academic mission of the University and align directly with the goals of the University’s Academic Plan.
The graduate internship must be established as a required component of the academic program in which the participating students are enrolled.
It must be demonstrated that the viability of the internship program is threatened if tuition is not covered.
The graduate internship must be credit-bearing, be directed by an instructor of record, and must require students to produce an academic work product.
The paid internship experience for the student must include compensation equivalent to or higher than that of a Level I graduate assistant for the academic year.
The graduate student interns must be placed in a sponsoring organization that provides at least partial support for the graduate student, including paying the student’s stipend and benefits.
The graduate students participating in the internship must serve their internships in public or nonprofit organizations with a clear public service mission.
The term of tuition coverage associated with a graduate internship will not exceed four semesters per student.
The graduate students participating in the internship must be in good academic standing.

For student tuition to be covered and for a health insurance subsidy to be provided by the University under this program, the Dean of the School or College that houses the internship program must present appropriate justification to the Provost.

The academic programs currently included in this program are available here.

Relocation and Moving Policy

August 7, 2013

Title:	Relocation and Moving Policy
Policy Owner:	Office of the Provost and Human Resources
Applies to:	Designated Full-time Faculty, Athletics, Librarians, Management Exempt, and Management Exempt positions with faculty titles
Campus Applicability:	All Campuses except UConn Health
Effective Date:	February 25, 2021
For More Information, Contact	Office of the Provost or Human Resources
Contact Information:	Provost@uconn.edu / HR@uconn.edu
Official Website:	http://www.policy.uconn.edu

REASON FOR POLICY

The University recognizes the competitive nature of the hiring process and therefore grants the flexibility to reimburse or pay for actual relocation expenses for designated full-time faculty, athletics, management-exempt administrators.

POLICY STATEMENT

The relocation policy and procedures establishes the nature of expenses that can be direct billed or reimbursed from the University, limits on these expenses, and a timeframe of when these expenses can occur.

POLICY

In the offer of employment, the University may include an offer to reimburse and/or provide direct payment for allowable moving expenses required for relocation up to the amount specified in the table set forth in paragraph 15 herein.
All reimbursement or direct payments for relocation expenses are includable in the employee’s taxable wages.
Designated faculty includes tenured and tenure-track faculty, management-exempt employees with a base faculty appointment, in-residence faculty, clinical faculty, extension faculty, and librarians.
Direct billing cannot be used for moves that occur during November or December.
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. Only expenses incurred in connection with the move phase are covered by this policy. Common relocation expenses include (where relevant, this covers the employee and one immediate family member, defined as spouse or child):
- Transportation of household goods
- Airfare, in accordance with the University Travel Policy
- Car rental (through the day of arrival), or mileage at the standard IRS medical/moving mileage rate, in accordance with the University Travel Policy
- Lodging (only during the one-way trip of the move phase, ending on the day of arrival), in accordance with the University Travel Policy
- Meals during travel (excluding alcohol), in accordance with the University Travel Policy
- Shipping of car
- Storage of household goods after arrival; not to exceed 30 consecutive days after date goods are moved from the former residence
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 of moving expenses an employee is eligible to receive.
The following types of non-business expenses, included but not limited to, will not be paid or reimbursed as part of relocation expenses:
- Entertainment
- Side trips, sightseeing
- Violations (parking tickets, moving violations, )
- Return trips to former residence
- Expenses related to former residence
- General repairs or maintenance of vehicle resulting from self-move
- Temporary accommodation in the new location beyond the day of arrival
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. Relocation payments are not intended to cover any travel expenses incurred during these two earlier phases.
The cost associated with the relocation of a laboratory, professional library, scholarly collection and/or equipment (scientific, musical, etc.) are excluded from this policy as they are not considered household goods or personal effects. If relevant for business purposes, costs associated with moving such materials should be negotiated separately.
This policy applies to new employees whose move exceeds 50 miles and who are moving to within 35 miles of the primary campus at which they will be working. Exceptions to this rule may be made by a Dean, the Director of Athletics, or by the appropriate EVP if a) they think that a move is reasonable given the commuting distance that the new employee would be facing, or b) the new residence of the employee will be close enough to the primary campus at which they will be working so that they will reasonably be able to relocate there and perform their duties.
Relocation expenses will only be covered by this policy if they occur within 12 months of the new start date of an employee.
If employment with the University ends in a voluntary separation prior to working at least thirty-nine (39) weeks on a full-time basis in the first twelve months after starting employment, the employee must reimburse the University the full amount of relocation expenses paid by the University.
Exceptions to extend applicability beyond these employees require a business justification and must be explicitly approved by the Director of Athletics, EVP, or President as appropriate.
The President will recommend an amount for reimbursement and/or direct payment for the Executive Vice Presidents/Provost to the Board. The Chairman of the Board will recommend an amount for reimbursement and/or direct payment for the President to the Board.
The formula for determining the amount to be reimbursed is based on the distance of the move. This figure represents the maximum reimbursement allowed. The allowance for a move constitutes the maximum commitment for reimbursement of University and/or Foundation funds, rather than an entitlement of the employee. The figure is also the maximum amount the University will pay when the direct bill option is selected. The formula is calculated according to the distance of the move, as follows:

Mileage	Reimbursement of expenses up to:
≤ 1,000 miles	$2,000
≤ 1,500 miles	$2,500
≤ 2,000 miles	$3,000
≤ 2,500 miles	$3,500
≤ 3,000 miles	$4,000

It may be the case that the competitive hiring practices of a specific field require exceptions to this policy. Exceptions that involve costs of up to 200% of the standard formula may be approved by the Dean, Director of Athletics, or EVP as appropriate. Exceptions above 200% of the standard formula or involving other requirements of the policy will require documentation of the business justification for the requested exception and these require approval by the EVP or President as appropriate.

PROCEDURES

Relocation and Moving Procedures are located here. Upon acceptance, the University’s contracted relocation services provider, Signature Relocation, will contact the employee directly to assist the employee with their relocation.

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, the University of Connecticut Student Code, or other applicable University Policies.

RELATED POLICIES

Reimbursement of Recruitment Expenses, Policy on

POLICY HISTORY

Policy Created: 07/01/2003 (Reimbursement of Recruitment and Moving Expenses Policy approved by Board of Trustees)

Revisions:

08/07/2013 (Reimbursement of Moving Expenses Policy and Procedures approved by Board of Trustees)

11/21/2014 (Procedural revisions to Reimbursement of Moving Expenses Policy and Procedures)

02/24/2021 (Relocation and Moving Policy approved by Board of Trustees)

Separation Policy for Unclassified Board of Trustees Exempt Managers and Confidential Employees

July 24, 2013

Title:	Separation Policy for Unclassified Board of Trustees Exempt Managers and Confidential Employees
Policy Owner:	Board of Trustees
Applies to:	June 26, 2013
Effective Date:	June 26, 2013
Campus Applicability:	All Campuses
For More Information, Contact	Human Resources, Labor Relations
Contact Information:	(860) 486-5684
Official Website:	https://hr.uconn.edu/employee-relations/

POLICY STATEMENT

This policy applies to the University of Connecticut at Storrs, all regional campuses including the Schools of Law and Social Work and the University of Connecticut Health Center. Managerial and Confidential employees of the University of Connecticut who do not have academic tenure are generally employed at-will and may be separated from employment for any lawful reason without advance notice. Management and Confidential employees who are involuntarily separated from the University of Connecticut for reasons unrelated to their job performance such as lay off, position elimination, or management reorganization may, at the sole and exclusive discretion of the University, be eligible for separation benefits in accordance with this policy. This policy does not apply to: (i) separation of an employee due to voluntary resignation or retirement; (ii) separation of an employee as the result of disciplinary action or for misconduct; or (iii) separation of an employee due to job performance.

SEPARATION BENEFITS

The separation benefits, if offered, will be in accordance with the guidelines provided below.

1. Release

In order to receive separation benefits, the employee must execute a separation agreement and general release in a form acceptable to the University. Typically, the University will require a non-disparagement provision.

2. Notice and/or Lump Sum Payment

At the discretion of the employer, the University may offer one of the following:

(a) written notice in advance of the effective date of separation, based on years of credited service at the University as shown below;

(b) lump sum payment of salary in lieu of notice according to years of credited service at the University as shown below;

(c) a combination of written notice and lump sum payment up to the maximum allowable limit, based on years of credited service at the University as shown below.

Less than	Years of Service 1 year	Notice Period or Lump Sum Payment –0–
Minimum	1 year	2 months
Minimum	2 years	3 months
Minimum	4 years	4 months
Minimum	6 years	5 months
Minimum	8 years	6 months

3. Health Insurance:

If the separating employee is receiving health insurance through the University, the University may extend the employee’s health insurance beyond the date of separation until the earlier of (a) up to six months (or such shorter time as the University specifies) or (b) when the separated employee becomes employed with an employer who offers health insurance.

Upon expiration of University-subsidized health insurance, the separated employee may elect to purchase additional health insurance continuation by paying the employee and employer share of the premium as provided by relevant state and/or federal law.

4. Outplacement Counseling

The University may choose, in its discretion, to offer job search assistance, career counseling or outplacement services.

EXCEPTIONS

Compensation or benefits in excess of this Policy may only be extended for good cause and only with the written approval of both the relevant Vice President or Vice Provost and the Director of Labor Relations.

POLICY HISTORY

Policy Created: 6-26-2013 (BOT Approved)

Vendor Code of Conduct

February 12, 2013

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	Director of Contracting and Compliance
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

University Policies

Environmental Policy Statement

Security Camera Policy

Facilities Operations & Building Services Guideline for Maintenance and Repair Services (Excludes UConn Health)

Satisfactory Academic Progress Policy

PURPOSE

APPLIES TO

DEFINITIONS

POLICY STATEMENT

ENFORCEMENT

PROCEDURES

Policy on Alleged Misconduct in Research

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE

APPLIES TO

DEFINITIONS

POLICY STATEMENT

PROCEDURES

Pre-Employment Background Check Policy

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE

APPLIES TO

POLICY STATEMENT

ENFORCEMENT

PROCEDURES/FORMS

POLICY HISTORY

The Provost’s Professional Internship Program for Public Outreach, Service, and Engagement

Relocation and Moving Policy

Separation Policy for Unclassified Board of Trustees Exempt Managers and Confidential Employees

POLICY STATEMENT

SEPARATION BENEFITS

EXCEPTIONS

POLICY HISTORY

Vendor Code of Conduct

Reportline

Related Links