Committee on Academic Faculty Conduct (CAFC)

Charge

The Committee on Faculty Academic Conduct (CFAC) is a University Committee comprising faculty members from all schools charged by the Executive Vice President and Provost (provost) to conduct peer assessments and investigations as a vital part of faculty governance, thus advancing the University community's subscription to a shared Code of Ethics while ensuring faculty rights are preserved in accordance with academic standards and policy. In support of policy PROV-035: Misconduct and Discipline of Academic Faculty, the CFAC serves two purposes:

1. The CFAC assesses allegations and, if warranted, investigates reports of faculty Academic Misconduct to determine if there is adequate cause for disciplinary action and makes recommendations to the relevant dean(s).
2. When a dean contemplates suspending or terminating a faculty member for cause due to confirmed serious Nonacademic Misconduct, the faculty member is entitled to peer review by the CFAC after the conclusion of the investigation unless (a) a committee consisting primarily of academic faculty members conducted the investigation or (b) entitlement to peer review is inconsistent with the policies governing the investigating entity; currently, the only policy that excludes the possibility of peer review is the Sexual Misconduct Policy (Title IX). The review by the CFAC serves to provide the dean with a faculty committee’s opinion on whether the confirmed misconduct warrants major disciplinary action; it is not a reinvestigation of the matter.

The dean must give substantial weight to the CFAC report and recommendation when arriving at their recommendation to the provost regarding possible disciplinary action.

The CFAC also serves in an informal advisory role to the president and provost, as requested, providing counsel on matters related to faculty academic conduct.

The CFAC does not evaluate faculty performance, although it may rely on disciplinary experts' assessments of performance in certain cases, for example, to assess a claim of neglect of duty.

Procedures

Committee composition and responsibilities:

The CFAC comprises no fewer than 16 academic faculty members at the rank of associate professor or professor, with at least one from each school, and at least three from (respectively) the School of Medicine and the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, spanning the broad disciplinary expertise of these larger schools. The members of the CFAC serve staggered three-year terms, with approximately one-third rotating on and off every year. Each member is selected by the school of their primary appointment according to that school's policies and processes. Faculty members who have been found responsible for misconduct are ineligible to serve on the CFAC for a period of 5 years. The provost will appoint one of the members of the CFAC as its chair. The vice provost for faculty affairs (VPFA) and the vice president and chief human resource officer (VPHR) are ex-officio members of the CFAC. Depending on the nature of the alleged misconduct, the CFAC may seek appropriate counsel from subject matter experts, the research integrity officer, University Counsel, or others in conducting its reviews.

The members of the CFAC receive yearly training regarding conducting investigations, maintaining confidentiality, record-keeping requirements, legal obligations, other investigating entities, etc.

The CFAC must maintain copies of transcripts, recordings, interview notes, and other relevant evidence as part of the assessment and investigation process. The provost’s office will retain all evidence collected in a secure investigation file, in accordance with the University's applicable record retention requirements. The chair of the CFAC, the VPFA, the VPHR, and the provost (and designee(s)) will have access to this information. All information collected that is deemed confidential must be clearly marked.

Reporting allegations of Academic Misconduct to the CFAC:

Only a school dean, the president, or the provost (or designees) can refer an allegation of misconduct by the faculty to the CFAC for assessment. Others who observe what they believe to be faculty Academic Misconduct should report it to the faculty member’s supervisor or dean or via the UVA Just Report It system.

CFAC procedures for a report of Academic Misconduct:

When a dean (or designee) requests that the CFAC consider a case of alleged Academic Misconduct, the CFAC will follow the procedures described in this section.

Initial assessment. The chair of the CFAC will notify the VPFA and the VPHR and then identify three CFAC committee members who do not have a conflict of interest in the case to form an assessment team. If possible, at least one member of the assessment team should be from the faculty member's school, at least one member should be from another school, and, if possible, at least one member should be of the rank and employment category (tenure-line or academic general faculty) as the faculty member being reviewed. The Associate Vice President for Talent Development or their delegate will appoint one member of HR Employee Relations with extensive training in best investigation practices and knowledge of University policies to serve in an ex officio (non-voting) capacity as the assessment and investigation advisor for the team.

The assessment team members will be chosen based on their experience with activities related to the alleged conduct (e.g., undergraduate education, research, clinical care, community engagement, etc.). Depending on the nature of the conduct, the dean (or designee) may determine that assessing the complaint requires substantive or disciplinary knowledge (e.g., when the alleged conduct implicates discipline-specific professional ethics or pedagogical practices). In such cases, the dean may, at the time of referral, request that another faculty member be added to the assessment team, and provide the chair of CFAC with appropriate nominations of faculty members (who may or may not be members of CFAC) for their consideration.

The assessment team will conduct an assessment and determine whether the reported conduct could reasonably be considered Academic Misconduct. The assessment serves as an initial review of the reported misconduct.

At the assessment stage, the assessment team is not expected to have collected all pertinent evidence. To inform its assessment, the assessment team may choose to communicate with the person(s) who initially observed or reported the alleged misconduct.

If the assessment team concludes that the reported behavior does not meet the criteria of Academic Misconduct, they will inform the chair of the CFAC, who will notify the dean and faculty member in writing. The chair of the CFAC also may connect the dean with other investigative entities, as appropriate. The dean may choose to dismiss the case; they may request an investigation from another investigative entity; or, if the dean believes that the reported behavior does meet the criteria for Academic Misconduct (despite the CFAC’s assessment), they can request an investigation from the CFAC. The CFAC will not investigate the alleged misconduct unless the dean requests it.

Investigation.  If the assessment team concludes that the reported behavior may meet the criteria for Academic Misconduct, the CFAC will begin an investigation unless the individual who requested the assessment (dean, provost, or president) wishes to withdraw the case. Otherwise, the chair of the CFAC will assemble an investigation team that includes the HR Employee Relations advisor as ex officio, the assessment team that conducted the initial assessment, and two additional members of the CFAC who do not have a conflict of interest in the case. The chair of the CFAC will select one of the members of the investigation team to serve as its chair. The role of the investigation team is to review the report of the alleged misconduct and collect and examine all pertinent evidence to determine whether academic misconduct occurred and, if so, its nature, scope, and severity.

Once the investigation team has been formed, the chair of the investigation team will notify the faculty member of the allegations that the team will investigate and the proposed investigation timeline. They also will offer the faculty member an opportunity to meet the VPFA to better understand the investigation process.

The timeline will allow for a thorough investigation of the report and consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Given the sensitive nature of any report, the investigation team will maintain the confidentiality of the individual who initially observed and reported the alleged misconduct and the faculty member, as well as any witnesses or others consulted during the investigation, to the extent possible. The amount of time required to conduct the investigation will depend on a number of factors, but the investigation team must make every effort to complete the investigation within 20 business days. In exceptional cases, an investigation may take longer in the interest of thoroughness or completeness. In such cases, the investigation team will notify the VPFA, the dean, and the faculty member of an extension of the investigation timeline.

The investigation serves as a formal review of the reported misconduct. The goal of an investigation is to determine whether Academic Misconduct occurred using a preponderance of evidence standard (misconduct will be established if it is more likely to have occurred than not).

The investigation team must consider all available relevant evidence. This includes interviews with all relevant stakeholders, including the faculty member and any witnesses; depending on the details of the case, relevant stakeholders also may include school leadership and content-area experts. The investigation team must offer to interview individuals requested by the dean (or their designee) or the faculty member, provided that such individuals are reasonably expected to have pertinent information. The investigation team will record all interviews and maintain confidentiality to the extent possible. If the investigation team finds that misconduct has occurred, it may recommend disciplinary actions as outlined in PROV-035: Misconduct and Discipline of Academic Faculty, Procedure 1.

Investigation report. Following the investigation, the investigation team will draft a report of its findings and recommendations. The chair of the investigation team will submit the report to the chair of the CFAC to forward to the dean. The report shall include:

• A description of the Academic Misconduct allegations;
• An overview of the investigation process and timeline;
• A summary of the information gathered;
• Recordings or transcripts of the meeting(s) with the faculty member and others interviewed;
• The investigation team's determination as to whether Academic Misconduct occurred, and if so, its recommendation for addressing the misconduct; and
• Any dissenting opinions from members of the investigation team.

The investigation team's complete report becomes part of the investigation file.

To protect confidential information to the extent possible, the chair of the investigation team will create a redacted version of the report and recommendation. The chair of the CFAC will provide this version to the faculty member, all members of the CFAC, and the dean to place in the employee’s record. The unredacted copy will be available to those given access to the secure investigation file unless they have a conflict of interest. The chair of the Faculty Senate Grievance Committee may obtain the unredacted report from the provost or the chair of the CFAC when the information contained is required for a fair review.

The investigation team's report is purely advisory, and the decision-making authority remains with the provost or dean (depending on the contemplated disciplinary action).

 CFAC peer review prior to major sanctions:

When a dean is contemplating suspension or termination of a faculty member for cause due to confirmed serious Nonacademic Misconduct, the faculty member is entitled to a review by the CFAC unless (a) a committee consisting primarily of academic faculty members conducted the investigation or (b) entitlement to peer review is inconsistent with the policies governing the investigating entity; currently, the only policy that excludes the possibility of peer review is the Sexual Misconduct Policy (Title IX). The dean must ask for such a review unless the faculty member opts out. A dean also may ask the CFAC to conduct a review when considering a lesser sanction, if desired. In either case, the CFAC will follow these procedures:

Peer review. The dean (or designee) will provide the CFAC with the investigation report, redacted to preserve confidentiality if possible. The chair of the CFAC will inform the VPHR and VPFA and appoint a peer review team consisting of three committee members who do not have a conflict of interest in the case. If possible, at least one member of the peer review team should be from the faculty member's school, and at least one member should be from another school. The chair of the CFAC will identify one member of the peer review team as its chair. The purpose of the peer review team is to review the report from the investigating entities and provide an opinion about the process and conclusions from a faculty perspective.

The peer review team will review the allegations and evidence, including the factual justification for possible disciplinary action given in the investigation report. The peer review team will provide the faculty member with an opportunity to meet with the team to discuss the allegations and, when relevant, to offer their explanation as to why the disciplinary action contemplated is unjustified. The peer review team will record this meeting.

The provost (or designee) may be present to observe interviews with the faculty member. With the permission of the chair of the peer review team, the provost or designee may ask questions.

Peer review report. At the conclusion of its review, the chair of the peer review team will prepare a written report and recommendation and send it to the chair of the CFAC to forward to the dean and the faculty member. In this report, the peer review team will advise the dean as to whether, in its opinion, the allegations appear reasonably justified and constitute grounds for major or minor disciplinary action. Any dissenting opinions will be included in the peer review team report. Any recordings of interviews will also be made available to the dean.

The peer review team's report is purely advisory, and the decision-making authority remains with the dean and provost.

Modifications to the CFAC Bylaws:

These Bylaws are embedded in policy PROV-035: Misconduct and Discipline of Academic Faculty and can be modified through the normal periodic policy revision process.

Procedure Timing Expectations

For each step in the procedures described above, there may be requirements regarding the speed with which a party must act and/or obligations to allow other parties a certain period of time to act. These are described below for the CFAC procedures, numbered as in the sections in the Procedures. All ‘days’ refer to business days. Any party may request additional time from other parties (or designees) when needed.

Timing for CFAC procedures for a report of Academic Misconduct

Please see Procedures Section (c) for the actions associated with each step’s timing described below.

Timing for CFAC procedures for a peer review prior to major sanctions

Please see Procedures Section (d) for the actions associated with each step’s timing described below.