Senate of the Urbana-Champaign Campus

Academic Calendars Agendas & Minutes Committees Committee Members Faculty Policy Guide Honorary Degrees Meeting Schedule Senate Meeting Videos Senate Members

TO: UIUC Senate

FROM: Robert Fossum, Chair, USSP

DATE: March 20, 2000

RE: SP.97.06, Amendments to the Statutes Article IX Proposing a New Section 11 Re: Definition of
Cause, a New Section 12 Re: Progressive Response, a New Section 13 Re: Sanctions, and a
New Section 14 Re: Dismissal for Cause

The Senate Committee on University Statutes and Senate Procedures carefully reviewed all comments
submitted to date on the proposed amendment to the Statutes for Progressive Response, Sanctions and
Dismissal for Cause for non-tenured/tenure track academic staff members. Given the importance of
language in the Statutes, the committee has crafted technical amendments to the proposal on the floor to
respond to those concerns.

The Senate Committee on University Statutes and Senate Procedures presents the following amendments
for consideration of the Senate. In the amendments below, text to be deleted is in [square brackets]; text to
be added is underlined. (The
enclosed proposal

includes the four (4) amendments.)

Delete the phrase "includes but is not limited to." Move lines 11-13 to this section, replacing the language
of (6) at lines 67-71, and add additional language in (2) at lines 59-60 to address deficiencies in original

Cause for sanctions [includes but is not limited to] is one or more of the following: (1) engaging in
professional misconduct in the performance of university duties or academic activities, (2)
neglecting or refusing to perform reasonable assigned academic or administrative duties or not
correcting serious deficiencies properly addressed through Progressive Response
, (3) violating
approved campus or university written regulations or policies related to conduct of academic or
administrative duties, (4) acting outside the appropriate exercise of university responsibilities so as
willfully to physically harm, threaten physical harm to, harass or intimidate a visitor or member of
the university community with the effect of interfering with that member's performance of
university duties or academic or administrative activities, (5) willfully damaging, destroying or
misappropriating property owned by the University or any property used in connection with a
university function or approved activity, or (6) [conviction in a court of law for a felony that is
clearly related to the performance of university duties or academic activities] off-duty behavior or
extramural conduct if it is found that such behavior clearly and convincingly demonstrates that
the staff member can no longer be relied upon to perform university duties and functions

Delete lines 11-13 as presently occur (to move to lines 67-71).

Amend line 87 to delete "include but are not limited to."

Serious infractions [include but are not limited to] are those outlined in Article IX, Section 13, . . .

Make explicit the checks and balances contained in the procedures for omitting early elements of
progressive response and moving directly to sanctions or dismissal (lines 25-27).

Any step may be repeated, omitted, or taken out of sequence where warranted by the seriousness
of the circumstances. Moving directly to sanction or dismissal requires concurrence beyond the
unit as specified in Article IX, Section 14

Make time periods for sanction and dismissal process exactly the same as currently provided in the
Statutes for faculty members.

Lines 126-127: "If a written request for a hearing is not delivered to the unit executive officer within [10
working] 15 days . . ."

Lines 184-185: "Such appeal must be made to the chancellor within [7 working] 30 days . . ."

Lines 190-191: "The academic staff member shall have [7 working] 30 days following . . ."

Lines 127-128: Delete the phrase "(or date of mailing if not deliverable)".

Correct ambiguity in original drafting (lines 111-115).

Following [an investigation] the process in subsection (1), the unit executive officer shall consult
with the [dean or equivalent major unit head] next level administrator. If the conclusion is that
there are sufficient grounds to recommend dismissal, the [dean or equivalent major unit head]
next level administrator shall so notify the provost."