Responding To SEA 202 Complaints Policy

Responding To SEA 202 Complaints Policy (2024)

1. Initial assessment of complaint. Upon receipt of an allegation that an instructor has not complied with SEA 202 (hereafter, complaint), the Executive Dean (ED) shall conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the complaint has standing and thus merits review. The ED may delegate this responsibility to the Executive Associate Dean (EAD). 
   1. Establishment of standing. In accordance with SEA 202, only complaints initiated by a student attending the university, or by an employee of the university, shall have standing.  
   2. Sufficient identifying information. A complaint must have sufficient identifying information to have standing. Sufficient identifying information shall include (1) the clear identification of a specific instructor (hereafter, respondent); and (2) reference to an incident that took place while the respondent was functioning in an official instructorship role.
   3. Lack of sufficient identifying information. If the initial assessment determines that the complaint lacks sufficient identifying information, then the complaint shall be closed. The respondent, and, upon consent of the respondent, the respondent's department chair or unit equivalent (hereafter, principal administrator), shall be informed that a complaint was received and closed due to lack of sufficient identifying information.  
   4. Sufficient objective evidence. The complaint must provide sufficient objective evidence. Sufficient objective evidence, as determined by the ED or EAD, is evidence that will enable a fact-based assessment of the incident.
      1. Neither the topic nor the scope of a course constitutes sufficient objective evidence of a violation.  
      2. A complainant's belief that instruction does not support intellectual diversity does not constitute sufficient objective evidence of a violation. 
   5. Lack of sufficient objective evidence. If the assessment determines that the complaint lacks sufficient objective evidence of a violation, then the complaint shall be closed. The respondent, and, upon consent of the respondent, the respondent's principal administrator shall be informed that a complaint was received and closed due to lack of sufficient objective evidence.  
   6. Quantity of complaints. If the complaint includes both sufficient identifying information and sufficient objective evidence, and: 
      1. If the complaint is a single complaint about an alleged incident, then it shall be evaluated on its own. 
      2. If the complaint is one of multiple complaints from different sources about the same alleged incident, then the related complaints shall be evaluated together. 
      3. If the complaint is one of a batch of identical complaints, then the complaints shall be consolidated and reviewed as a single complaint.
2. Determination of reviewer. If the initial assessment determines that a complaint merits review as a potential violation, then the ED shall inform the respondent and the respondent's principal administrator of the complaint and offer the option of review by the principal administrator or by the Complaint Review Committee (hereafter, CRC).  Either the respondent or the principal administrator may request that the review be conducted by the CRC.  
   1. If the respondent holds an appointment in more than one department, then the chair for complaint review shall be the chair of the department of the respondent's tenure home for TT faculty or promotion home for NTT faculty. 
   2. If the respondent is an SAA, then the chair for complaint review shall be the chair of the department offering the course.
3. Complaint Review Faculty Committee (CRC). The CRC shall be composed of experienced faculty members with representation from each of the divisions of the core College, and from internal schools if they choose to participate. The CRC shall be constructed to ensure a mix of TT and NTT instructional faculty.
   1. CRC members shall be selected and appointed by the College Policy Committee (CPC), in consultation with the EAD. 
      1. Fifteen members of the CRC will represent the three disciplinary divisions of the College, with five members representing A&H, representing S&H, and five representing N&M.
      2. Three additional representatives from each internal school that chooses to participate in this committee process shall be chosen by the CPC, and in consultation with the policy committee or analogue faculty governance body of each participating internal school.
      3. CRC members shall be appointed for a two-year term with the possibility of renewal. 
      4. CRC members shall have a duty of confidentiality and of treating all parties to a complaint with respect and impartiality. 
      5. CRC members shall recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest as defined by university policy, and the respondent may ask that a CRC recuse themselves for cause.
      6. The CRC shall elect a chair from among its members who will be responsible for rotating reviewer assignments as outlined in Sections 4 and 5.
4. Preliminary review process. Before initiating a formal investigation, the reviewer shall conduct a preliminary review of relevant objective facts and shall seek to confer with the respondent toward an informal resolution of the complaint. The respondent may involve a representative during any part of the preliminary review process.
   1. If the reviewer is the CRC, then it will draw from its members a review panel consisting of three committee members, each from different disciplinary divisions and/or internal schools, in consultation with the respondent and their principal administrator. One empaneled reviewer shall be from the same disciplinary division or internal school as the respondent, but not from their home department.
   2. The respondent shall be provided with a copy of the complaint and shall have the opportunity to provide a verbal or written response. 
   3. The reviewer may interview witnesses, view documents, and collect written statements, but the reviewer is not required to conduct a formal hearing. 
   4. The reviewer shall determine whether the complaint is with merit based on a preponderance of objective evidence. 
   5. A finding that the complaint is with merit must summarize the evidence and must be communicated to the respondent in writing. 
   6. The respondent and the reviewer may reach an informal resolution at any time during this review process.
      1. If an informal resolution is reached, then no sanction shall be given. A notation that the complaint was resolved informally shall be recorded, including a summary of the resolution that has been reached.
      2. The complaint shall then be closed, and information to this effect shall be forwarded to the respondent and to either the Executive Dean of the College or the Dean of the relevant internal school.
      3. Informal resolutions shall not become part of the respondent's personnel file, nor shall they be considered in tenure, promotion, annual reviews, or five-year reviews. 
   7. The preliminary review process should be carried out at a reasonable speed, and whenever possible, should conclude within three months of the initial complaint being forwarded to the reviewer. 
5. Investigation process. If the preliminary review process finds the complaint to be with merit, and if the reviewer and the respondent have not reached an informal resolution, then the reviewer will initiate an investigation.
   1. If the respondent's principal administrator conducted the preliminary review, then either the principal administrator or the respondent may request that the CRC undertake the investigation. In such a case, the CRC shall draw from its members an investigation panel consisting of five committee members, ensuring that at least three members are from different disciplinary divisions and/or internal schools, in consultation with the respondent and their principal administrator. One empaneled investigator shall be from the same disciplinary division or internal school as the respondent, but not from their home department. 
   2. If a panel from the CRC conducted the preliminary review, then the initial three-person panel shall be expanded to five CRC members, ensuring that panel composition conforms to the requirements in 5.a.
   3. The respondent shall be provided with a copy of the finding of the preliminary review and shall have the opportunity to provide a written response. 
   4. The investigator may interview witnesses, view documents, and collect written statements, but the investigator is not required to conduct a formal hearing. 
   5. The investigator shall determine whether the complaint constitutes a violation based on a preponderance of objective evidence.
   6. The investigation process should be carried out at a reasonable speed, and whenever possible, should conclude within three months of the preliminary review's communication of their finding that the complaint is with merit. 
6. Concluding an Investigation. If the investigator determines at any point that no further investigation is warranted, then the investigator shall inform the respondent, the ED and EAD, and, if the CRC is the Investigator, the respondent's principal administrator.
7. Sanctions. If the investigation concludes that the complaint constitutes a violation, then the investigator may recommend any appropriate common sanction to the ED and EAD, taking into consideration the severity of the violation and whether the respondent has a documented history of previous violations of SEA 202.
8. Appeals. Respondents who believe that their rights under this policy have been denied have the right to appeal.
   1. If administrative action has been taken against the respondent for the violation, then an appeal shall happen at the College level through the CRC. The CRC shall empanel a new five-person board to investigate the appeal. The appeal must follow the procedures outlined in items 5–7 of this policy.
   2. If the respondent requests further appeal after the conclusion of the College-level appeal, then the respondent shall submit their appeal to the Bloomington Faculty Board of Review. 

Adapted from Procedures for ACA 33 with some additions from the Title IX complaint process