Any faculty member involved in any aspect of the promotion review, department chair, dean, or dean involved in the promotion review (Section A.2) with an actual or potential member of the president’s review committee with a conflict of interest related to a candidate (e.g., spouse, partner, Ph.D. advisor, postdoctoral mentor, etc.) must recuse themselves themself from the review, discussion, and vote on that candidate.
For purposes of this provision, a conflict of interest exists in the following situations:
...
(a) Formal Complaints of Misconduct Caution must be exercised if (1) a faculty member or administrator reviewing the candidate’s dossier was either a respondent or complainant in a University misconduct
...
case and the
...
candidate was an opposing party in the same
...
case (
...
one was
...
the complainant and the other a respondent
...
) and (2) the complainant alleged that the respondent’s misconduct was directed against or harmed the complainant
...
. For purposes of this provision, a conflict of interest is considered to exist if the matter resulted in a finding that the respondent committed a policy violation or engaged in behavior subject to discipline
...
For purposes of this provision, a potential conflict of interest exists when the . If the matter did not result in a finding or is still under investigation at the time of the dossier review, the dean must contact the Faculty Affairs team in the Provost’s Office to discuss the situation. The Faculty Affairs team, in consultation with the Office of the Vice President of Legal Affairs, determines that the underlying facts in a given scenario cause the appearance of a conflict that undermines University confidence in the fairness of the process.
- This determination is final.
The dean should contact the provost’s Faculty Affairs team regarding voting eligibility in the event of similar situations that did not result in a finding or that are under investigation at the time of the dossier reviewwill determine the voting eligibility of reviewers directly involved with the matter. This determination is final. (b) Potential Conflict of Interest For purposes of this provision, a potential conflict of interest is considered to exist if a faculty member or administrator reviewing the candidate’s dossier would benefit directly from the promotion of the candidate. Examples include the candidate’s spouse/partner (current or former), close relative, PhD advisor, postdoctoral mentor, and close research collaborator. The dean must contact the Faculty Affairs team in the Provost’s Office to discuss voting eligibility for any other potential conflicts of interest that are not among those listed above. The Faculty Affairs team, in consultation with the Office of the Vice President of Legal Affairs, will determine the voting eligibility of reviewers with potential conflicts of interest. This determination is final.