The purpose of this policy is to define the circumstances under which honoraria may be paid.

II. To Whom the Policy Applies

This policy applies to all honorarium payments.

III. Policy Statement

Honorarium

For purposes of this policy, an honorarium is a one-time, discretionary payment made by the University as a gesture of goodwill or appreciation for an individual’s voluntary contribution to a University-sponsored activity. Example activities for which an honorarium may be paid include the following:

• A special one-time lecture for which the individual has no responsibility for grading or taking class attendance
• One-time guest speaker for an educational event, seminar, workshop, or other similar function
• Appearance at an event by a recognized authority in a particular field of endeavor

To qualify as an honorarium, there should be no specific deliverable requested or expected from the individual.

Honoraria may not be paid to:

• a current employee of the University (whether that employee is permanent, temporary, part-time, or full-time)
• a current University student
• a business

The University does not make charitable contributions to organizations in lieu of an honorarium payment.

An honorarium is a token of appreciation and not a contractual arrangement to pay for services rendered. Accordingly, it cannot be:

• based on a negotiated amount between the individual providing services and the University. Any verbal or written negotiated agreement in which the University will be obligated to pay for services must be made in accordance with University procurement policies and procedures (i.e., Independent Contractors or consultants).
• provided to individuals who make significant instructional contributions to a course.
• paid over several months or as a reoccurring payment (e.g., to visiting scholars).
• for an amount exceeding $5,000. Honorarium payments exceeding $5,000 must have written advance approval from the President, Provost, Dean, EVP for Finance and Administration/CFO, URMC CEO or CFO.

Eligibility & Visa Requirements

Honoraria may be paid to foreign nationals in accordance with their visa classification.

• Prohibited Visa Categories:
  • H‑1B, TN, O visas: Visitors on these visas not sponsored by the University may NOT receive honoraria or service payments. In such cases, payment may need to be arranged through the visitor’s home institution.
• J‑1 Visa Holders:
  • If the visitor is on a J‑1 visa not sponsored by the University, they must provide written authorization from their J‑1 program sponsor granting permission to receive payment. The authorization must be submitted with the payment request.
  • Sample authorization from J-1 visa holder’s sponsoring institution, on their letterhead:(Payee) has permission to receive payment from the URochester. The activity they will be involved with at the URochester is directly related to their principal activity, is indeed incidental, and will not delay completion of their program.

• B‑1/B‑2 or Visa Waiver Program (WB/WT):
  • Eligible for honoraria under the 9/5/6 rule:
    1. Stay no more than 9 days at the host institution,
    2. No more than 5 honoraria payments from U.S. sources in the previous 6 months.
  • A completed must be submitted with the payment request.

Tax Withholding & Reporting

U.S. Citizens, Permanent Residents, and Resident Aliens for Tax Purposes

An honorarium is considered taxable income and is reportable to the IRS on Form 1099-NEC if the total reportable payments to the honoraria recipient meets the IRS reporting threshold. U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and resident aliens for tax purposes who receive honoraria payments from the University must provide a complete and signed Form W-9.

Non-Permanent Residents and Non-resident Aliens for Tax Purposes

All honoraria payments made to a non-permanent resident or foreign individual are subject to income tax withholding, unless specifically exempted by either U.S. tax law or an income tax treaty. Payments not exempt from withholding are generally subject to 30% federal income tax withholding in accordance with IRS regulations. To claim an exemption from tax withholding under an income tax treaty, the payee must submit Form 8233 along with any required supporting documents to Candex.

Prior to agreeing to pay an honorarium payment to a non-permanent resident, the payment requester must confirm that the individual is present in the United States under an immigration status that allows them to perform an activity for which a payment may be made, as described above under “Eligibility & Visa Requirements.”

Travel Reimbursements Paid to an Honorarium Recipient

Travel reimbursements paid to an honorarium recipient are non-taxable when documented and paid in accordance with the University’s .

Documentation & Process

See for detailed information regarding documentation requirements and procedure information.

• All Honoraria payments are paid through Candex.
• Supporting documentation to be submitted with the Honorarium request includes:
  • Event Flyer, Event agenda, or other materials that describe the event and the recipient’s participation in the University event.
  • If the payee is a visa holder, the appropriate visa authorization, as described in the Visa Requirements section, must be attached.

The post Honorarium Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

International travel is an integral part of the academic, research, and healthcare mission of the URochester, and Ģ����ý broadly encourages and supports international travel by its faculty, staff, and students in support of that mission—these opportunities offer valuable learning experiences for students and provide faculty members with mechanisms to enhance their research and teaching.

Objective

The goal of this policy is to help ensure the health, safety, and security of members of the Ģ����ý community undertaking international travel consistent with the broad activity and intellectual exploration inherent to the international reach of a research university. It seeks to enable consistent planning, operation, and response among widely varied academic units and activities; provide for expeditious and consistent institutional support for Ģ����ý global activities in the event of crisis; reduce risk to travelers and the institution; and connect Ģ����ý travelers with appropriate resources and support.

Scope

This policy applies to all Ģ����ý-sponsored or -supported travel; it does not apply to non-Ģ����ý or personal travel. This policy does not cover all requirements for international employment or international student programs[2]. In additional to compliance with this policy, all international programs involving student travel abroad must conform to the Ģ����ý Education Abroad Program Policy.

Definitions

• Foreign Country of Concern: China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and any other country determined to be a country of concern by the Secretary of State.
• International Travel Review Committee (ITRC): The ITRC is a standing committee advisory to the Provost on matters related to international travel, health, and safety of all Ģ����ý faculty, staff, students, and post-docs traveling or studying abroad on Ģ����ý-affiliated programs or business. Responsibilities also include policy review, travel proposal review, and other risk-related recommendations.
• High-Risk Destinations: Countries under current U.S. Department of State Travel Advisory levels 3 (“Reconsider Travel”) and 4 (“Do Not Travel”), or regions, provinces, and cities that contain the language “Reconsider Travel” or “Do Not Travel” within the narrative of any level 1–4 Travel Advisory. Locations under a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designation of “Warning Level 3, Avoid Nonessential Travel” are also considered high-risk. The Ģ����ý may apply the designation “high risk” to locations that pose a specific health, safety, or security concern as indicated by other sources, such as our insurers or intelligence providers.
• International Travel: Travel undertaken outside the 50 United States.[1]
• Sanctioned Countries: Countries subject to comprehensive United States trade or economic restrictions administered by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the following regions of Ukraine: Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
• Sponsoring Unit: A department, school, college, center, office or other Ģ����ý entity that organizes, approves, or supports an overseas activity.
• Travel Registration: Ģ����ý record (completed by traveler or traveler proxy prior to departure) of traveler name, date, destination, itinerary, and contact information.
• Ģ����ý-Sponsored or Supported Travel: Academic or business travel undertaken by Ģ����ý Faculty, Staff, or Students and, in the case of students and medical residents, developed, funded, or administered by the URochester, or in the case of faculty/staff, related to the individual’s role at Ģ����ý or developed, funded, or administered by Ģ����ý (including travel pursuant to a funded research project). Such travel may include, but is not limited to: teaching, research, conferences, administrative work, for-credit study, internships, field studies, service learning, volunteer or work programs and other experiential learning, performances, athletic competitions, and trips abroad in connection with student organizations recognized by any Ģ����ý academic or administrative unit, and students in absentia.
• Waiver of Liability: A legal document signed by a person participating in an activity, acknowledging that the individual is aware of the risks associated with participation in the activity and agreeing to waive any claims against the Ģ����ý arising from any loss or injury suffered while participating in the activity.

Travel Authorization

Individuals traveling internationally on Ģ����ý-sponsored programs or Ģ����ý-supported travel must conform to all pre-travel requirements, including all appropriate approvals and authorizations. General requirements are summarized below, and all travelers are responsible for ensuring compliance with additional policies implemented within their department. Ģ����ý personnel must comply with policy items that align to the capacity in which they are traveling (e.g., a staff member who is also enrolled as a student and is traveling as part of a credit-bearing course must comply with all requirements for student travel.)

• All Students: Undergraduate and Graduate Students (including Medical Students): Students must receive approval from their schools and departments and meet all requirements set forth by the Center for Education Abroad (CEA) and the Office for Global Engagement. Students participating in: Rochester Programs, Direct Enroll Programs, Exchange Programs, Third-party Programs, Partner Programs, Non-partner programs, or non-credit experiences should consult the Center for Education Abroad to ensure all requirements are met.
• Postgraduate Medical Trainees: Travel by medical residents and fellows is permitted when approved by the .
• Faculty and Staff (including fellows and post-docs): Faculty and staff traveling abroad, without students, to locations that generally do not pose elevated levels of risk (e.g., not designated as high-risk, not sanctioned by U.S. government, etc.) are not required to seek authorization through Global Engagement.

  Faculty and staff traveling abroad as a leader, organizer, or facilitator for a student (or group of students) must contact CEA for a formal review of the planned program. Program review ensures that all programs are developed in alignment with CEA policy and guidelines, including industry standards and best practices.

Export Control Matters

Individuals traveling internationally on Ģ����ý-sponsored programs or Ģ����ý-supported travel must comply with the following notifications for export control compliance purposes at least five (5) business days before undertaking the travel.

• All Students (including Undergraduate, Graduate Students, and Medical Students), Postgraduate Medical Trainees, Faculty and Staff (including fellows and post-docs): Students, medical residents and fellows, and faculty and staff traveling on Ģ����ý-sponsored programs or Ģ����ý-supported travel must notify the Ģ����ý’s Export Control Officer before traveling (1) to a Sanctioned Country, (2) internationally with “technical data” controlled by the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR), or (3) traveling to a Foreign Country of Concern with a URochester-owned electronic device (other than a “loaner” device furnished by the Ģ����ý).

Travel Registration

Travel registration enables the Ģ����ý to provide resources and support to travelers prior to, and during, international travel. Timely registration is also critical for ensuring enrollment in Ģ����ý-provided travel insurance and ensuring compliance with evolving federal research security mandates. Failure to register travel could result in ineligibility for university coverages, leaving a traveler without critical support, such as financial reimbursement for medical emergencies or other forms of assistance during a medical or security emergency while abroad.

Registration does not constitute a request for travel approval, and completion of the registration process does not constitute Ģ����ý approval.

In addition to the travel resources available through the registration process, travelers are strongly encouraged to reach out to Ģ����ý IT directly and discuss additional resources such as the use of loaner devices while abroad. Many travelers may be eligible to use a loaner device, which can lessen security risks.

• All Students: Undergraduate and Graduate Students (including Medical Students): All Ģ����ý students traveling abroad on Ģ����ý-sponsored or Ģ����ý-supported travel are required to register their trip. Registration should be completed as early as possible and no less than 30 days prior to departure.  This includes travel that is developed, funded, administered, or otherwise supported by the URochester.

  The Ģ����ý provides a secure for students to register their travel plans when they are going on Ģ����ý-sponsored or Ģ����ý-supported travel. Students who have applied to and been accepted to a program in the are already registered in the EA Portal with an appropriate program and the Student Travel Form is not required.

  Travel registration for students participating in the following specialty, experiential, or service learning abroad including (but not limited to): Artistic Performance, Athletic Team Trip, Business, Work, Conference, Internship, and Research are required to complete the Student Travel Proposal Form.

• Postgraduate Medical Trainees: Medical residents and fellows are required to register their travel with the Office for Global Engagement.
• Staff: Staff are required to register their travel with the  (via web-based portal) before undertaking any Ģ����ý-sponsored or Ģ����ý-supported international travel.
• Faculty (including fellows and postdocs): Faculty are required to register their travel with the  (via web-based portal) before undertaking any Ģ����ý-sponsored or Ģ����ý-supported international travel.

High-Risk Travel

• All Students: Undergraduate and Graduate Students (including Medical Students): Students must submit a travel permission request form to travelsecurity@rochester.edu for required review and approval by the International Travel Review Committee (ITRC). Standing approvals for frequent or recurring travel may be issued at the discretion of the ITRC.

  All high-risk travel requests should be submitted as far in advance as possible and at least two months prior to proposed dates of travel.

• Postgraduate Medical Trainees: Travel to high-risk locations by medical residents and fellows is permitted only when approved by the Graduate Medical Education Office.
• Faculty & Staff (including fellows and postdocs): Faculty and staff travel to high-risk destinations may be reviewed for health, safety, or other risk management purposes. Travelers are encouraged to seek advice from the  early in the planning process to develop plans to help mitigate risks.

Minors

Travel for Ģ����ý programs involving the participation of minors must comply with Ģ����ý’s Policy on Minimum Standards for Programs for Minors and Children and human resources policy for the Employment of Minors.

Waivers of Liability

Each Sponsoring Unit must ensure that all participants sign a Waiver of Liability form prior to departure on Ģ����ý-sponsored or Ģ����ý-supported international travel to high-risk destinations.

In each case, the form used must be a standard Ģ����ý form and must be tailored to the specific program and risks. Signed forms must be kept on file by the Sponsoring Unit for four years from the end of the trip or program.

Insurance and Travel Assistance

All individuals traveling on Ģ����ý business or Ģ����ý-sponsored or Ģ����ý-supported international travel are eligible for international travel insurance and assistance coverage, fully sponsored by URochester. Details of coverage are available through Global Engagement’s website or may be obtained by contacting Global Engagement at travelsecurity@rochester.edu.

International travel insurance plans are not intended to replace primary healthcare coverages. Students undertaking Ģ����ý-sponsored or Ģ����ý-supported international travel must possess health insurance that meets minimum standards, and faculty and staff are strongly encouraged to review their personal health insurance coverage.

Note: Exclusions to insurance coverages apply. Some activities, especially those that are not organized by the Ģ����ý or the Ģ����ý’s partners, may not be covered. Common exclusions include but are not limited to: willful criminal activity, unlicensed operation of motor vehicle, skiing, skydiving, other sporting activities, etc. All travelers are responsible for understanding limitations of coverage and must individually procure any additional necessary coverages.

Emergency Evacuation and Trip Cancellation

If the safety or security of a location changes after the traveler receives permission to travel, the Ģ����ý may revoke the approval or require travelers to meet additional stipulations or travel requirements.

In cases of a serious emergency or other event that raises a serious safety or health concern while a traveler is abroad, the Ģ����ý may require travelers to return early or adjust their travel itinerary. In such scenarios, Ģ����ý will evaluate specific travel situations and protocols regarding travel evacuation or cancellation with any affected stakeholders.

During all international travel, and especially in emergency situations, travelers must follow directives and guidelines from local authorities. Travelers are also expected to comply with any entry restrictions implemented by the United States government, state governments, or local authorities upon their return from abroad.

Reporting of Incidents Abroad

Incidents, including accidents, injuries, illnesses, mental-health-related issues, criminal activity and the like, that impact the health or safety of any Ģ����ý person during international travel, must be reported to the Ģ����ý Public Safety or the Director of Global Travel Risk Management.

If a student is seeking assistance related to an incident of sexual misconduct and does not want to make a formal report about the incident to the URochester, the student should be referred to options for anonymous reporting on the Sexual Misconduct and Title IX website here.

Student Conduct

Student conduct while on international travel is subject to existing . Disciplinary procedures followed will be fundamentally fair and consistent with the Ģ����ý’s procedures to the maximum extent feasible under the circumstances.

[1] U.S. Territories are considered outside the 50 United States.

[2] Additional resources are located in Appendix I

The post International Travel Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

The Ģ����ý supports the creation and development of student programs abroad and aims to encourage and enable students, faculty, and staff to participate in international experiences. These opportunities are designed to offer valuable experiences for participants to further their academic objectives and enrich their overall experience at URochester.

Reason for Policy

Student experiences abroad vary widely in style, size, and complexity. This policy serves to standardize the development of programs and ensure compliance with all appropriate rules and regulations. Adherence to this policy and the accompanying rules and regulations will enable the Ģ����ý to ensure that experiences abroad meet education, health, and safety standards, meet internal and external reporting requirements, and comply with applicable Ģ����ý policies.

Scope

This policy applies to all Ģ����ý faculty, staff, undergraduate and graduate students, schools, units/departments, and affiliated institutions developing or creating an international program(s) involving Ģ����ý students. This policy includes, but is not limited to: enrollment in courses, experiential learning, internships, service learning, and other learning activities, which occur outside of the U.S^[1].

Examples include but are not limited to:

• A faculty or staff member leading or organizing a program with a URochester student or group of students outside of the U.S. may include research, service learning, experiential learning, internships, or non-credit.
• A faculty or staff member accompanying students on a research program abroad funded by a national grant (e.g. NSF grant).
• A faculty or staff member coordinating an international exchange where students take electives at a partner or host university.
• A faculty or staff member creating a course with a component—or part of a component—that is conducted outside of the U.S. (e.g. spring break component of a course taught outside the U.S.).
• A faculty or staff member looking to create a new partnership with a university, college, or non-profit educational organization outside of the U.S.
• A coach organizing or leading a global trip abroad for a competition and/or cultural excursion.
• A student leader organizing an experience outside of the United States as part of their organization, club, or extra-curricular group.

This policy does not apply to programs that are developed, created, or otherwise administered by non-Ģ����ý third party organizations.

Program Approval

All Ģ����ý-supported student programs abroad must be vetted and approved by the appropriate department, Center for Education Abroad (CEA), and dean of school. Programs to high-risk destinations, or programs that involve activities determined to be high-risk, will be subject to additional review by the International Travel Review Committee.

Program Agreements

All faculty or staff are required to consult with the Center for Education Abroad (CEA) prior to the development of any travel arrangements or formal agreements (such as Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or contracts), which involve taking students abroad in any capacity. All agreements for international activities must comport with the University’s Signature Authority Policy.

Training

All trip leaders and program participants are required to complete all relevant pre-departure training. This may include, but is not limited to:

• An in-person health and safety orientation session;
• The completion of designated training modules in MyPath; and
• Formal acknowledgment—via signature or digital sign-off— that faculty expectations, as determined by CEA have been read and understood​.

Program Guests

Guests such as spouses or other family members may, in limited circumstances, be permitted to accompany a faculty or staff member on a URochester-supported program and must be approved during program development. Guests shall have no formal roles or responsibilities regarding the operations of the program, and interaction with the program participants should be limited to pre-approved activities.

Relevant Standards and Policies

Ģ����ý-supported student programs abroad must comply with all applicable Ģ����ý policies and procedures related to international programs or travel, including the International Travel Policy^[2].  This policy has been developed within the framework of the standards of industry practice.

[1] Per International Travel Policy, “international travel is defined as travel undertaken outside of the 50 United States. U.S. territories are considered international.

[2] International Travel Policy lists additional important references, such as relevant Human Resources policies.

The post Education Abroad Program Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

This Ģ����ý (“University”) Policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct is intended to meet regulatory requirements, and to provide a fair, transparent, and understandable process for addressing concerns about the conduct of research. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) and the Office of Research Integrity, Stewardship & Ethics (ORISE) serve as neutral resources for faculty, trainees, and staff, and are available to explain and support the process, answer questions, and help ensure procedural fairness for all parties in implementing this policy.

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of all research misconduct proceedings. To the extent possible, research misconduct proceedings are conducted in a manner intended to minimize disruption to ongoing research. Thus, it is generally anticipated that research activities will continue while a research misconduct proceeding is underway. If, however, serious irregularities are identified during the process- such as non-compliance with regulatory, security or institutional requirements, credible concerns about harassment or unsafe conditions, financial malfeasance, or other serious violations- the University may temporarily modify or pause affected activities to protect and safeguard research participants, personnel, data, and University or sponsor funds and resources.

In sum, this policy and the procedures derived from it are designed to safeguard both the integrity of the research enterprise and the rights of those individuals involved in, or affected by, allegations of research misconduct while ensuring that such allegations are evaluated in a fair, confidential and timely manner.

General Policy Principles

The University is committed to maintaining an active culture of research integrity and upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor in research, where all individuals engaged in research meet the highest ethical and scientific standards, while protecting the academic freedom and reputation of all members of the University’s research community. The University is committed to fostering an environment that promotes research integrity and the responsible and ethical conduct of research. As such, the University, does not tolerate research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct in accord with this Policy and applicable law. The purpose of this Policy is to ensure that all members of the University community understand their rights and responsibilities, and the University’s standardized method of addressing allegations of conduct that falls short of our ethical and scientific obligations in a clear, transparent manner.

All institutional members are expected to conduct research with honesty, rigor, and transparency. Each institutional member is responsible for contributing to a University culture that establishes, maintains, and promotes research integrity and the responsible and ethical conduct of research and, in accord with the terms of this Policy, a respondent will be found to have engaged in misconduct only by the respondent’s admission or upon a determination by the preponderance of the evidence.

The University strives to reduce the risk of research misconduct, supports all good-faith efforts to report suspected misconduct, promptly and thoroughly address all allegations of research misconduct, and seeks to rectify the research record and/or restore researchers’ reputations, as appropriate.

Research misconduct is contrary to the interests of the University, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the appropriate use of public and private funds. Both the University and its institutional members have a duty to protect those funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all research conducted on behalf of the University.

The University is responsible for ensuring that this policy and the procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct meet all applicable sponsor requirements and local, state, or federal regulations. These include but are not limited to the (42 CFR Parts 50 & 93, “the PHS regulation”), and the NSF Research Misconduct Policy (42 CFR Part 689). ORISE will maintain this policy and its associated procedures, inform all institutional members about them, and make them publicly available.

For definitions of terms used in this section and elsewhere, see the Definitions section.

Scope and Applicability

This policy outlines the steps to be taken in response to an allegation of research misconduct involving any individual reviewing, proposing, performing, or reporting research or scholarly work at the University, regardless of the source of funding. It describes an objective examination of the facts, protection of individual rights, and integration with other relevant review procedures. Further, additional procedures beyond those outlined in this policy may be implemented to comply with the procedural, reporting, and other requirements of external sponsors.

The conduct of proceedings under this policy shall be overseen by the University Research Integrity Officer (“RIO”). Where the alleged matters occurred in part at the University, and in part at another institution, the RIO shall coordinate with the appropriate personnel at the other institution on any review of the allegations, and where the alleged matters are externally funded, the RIO may consult with funding agencies, the Office of Research Project Administration (ORPA) and/or other relevant parties to mutually define a process for a thorough, competent, objective, and fair proceeding, with confidentiality in mind.

To the extent that the subject matter of the allegation(s) falls within the scope of another University policy or falls under the jurisdiction of another University office or committee, such as, but not limited to, the Office for Human Subject Protection (OHSP), University Committee on Animal Resources (UCAR), or the Conflict of Interest Committee (COIC), such matters may be referred at any time to those committees for consultation and/or management.

This policy and its associated procedures apply only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date the allegation is received, subject to the following exceptions:

• If the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year period through the use of, republication of, or citation to the portion(s) of the research record alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, for the potential benefit of the respondent, the six-year time limitation does not apply (“subsequent use exception”).
• If after a thorough assessment of relevant materials the RIO or RIO Designee determines that the alleged misconduct is not subject to the exception, the RIO or RIO Designee will document their determination. The University will retain this documentation for seven years after completion of the institutional proceeding or the completion of any pertinent agency proceeding, whichever is later.
• The six-year time limitation also does not apply if a pertinent agency or the University, following consultation with such agency, determines that the alleged research misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.

These policies and procedures do not supersede or establish an alternative to applicable laws and regulations for handling research misconduct. In case of any conflict between this document and applicable laws and requirements, the RIO in concert with the University Office of Counsel (OGC), if appropriate, will make a determination as to which laws and regulations will prevail.

Definitions

• Accepted practices of the relevant research community. Accepted practices of the relevant research community refer to the established norms, standards, and procedures recognized and followed by researchers within a specific field of study, including professional codes or norms set forth by external funders, professional societies, or research organizations within that field.
• Administrative record. The administrative record comprises: the institutional record; any information provided by the respondent to a relevant oversight agency related to a research misconduct proceeding, including but not limited to the transcript of any virtual or in-person meetings or correspondence between the respondent and such agency; any additional information provided to such agency while the case is pending; and any analysis or additional information generated or obtained by the oversight agency.
• Allegation. Allegation means disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication when brought directly to the attention of an institutional or pertinent external agency official.
• Assessment. Assessment means a consideration of whether an allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct and within the scope of this policy; and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.
• Complainant. Complainant means an individual who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.
• 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 the University meet its responsibilities under applicable law. An institutional or committee member will not be deemed to be acting 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 to determine whether the allegation is credible, specific, and may have substance to warrant an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of the evidence related to the allegation.
• Institution. Institution means the URochester, including all of its schools, colleges, academic departments, research centers, institutes, and administrative units, as well as any individual or entity acting on its behalf in the conduct of research, research training, or related scholarly activities. This also includes any individual who applies for or receives external support for any research or scholarly activity or program on behalf of the institution.
• Institutional Deciding Official. Institutional Deciding Official (IDO) means the University official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and memorializes any institutional actions. The same individual cannot serve as the Institutional Deciding Official and the Research Integrity Officer.
• Institutional member. Institutional member and members means an individual (or individuals) who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with the University. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, subject matter experts, consultants, attorneys, or employees or agents of contractors, subcontractors, or sub-awardees.
• Institutional record. The institutional record comprises: (a) The non-legally privileged records that the University compiled or generated during the research misconduct proceeding, except records the University did not consider or rely on. These records include but are not limited to: (1) documentation of the assessment as required by applicable regulations; (2) if an inquiry is conducted, the inquiry report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the inquiry, including, but not limited to, research records and the transcripts of any transcribed interviews conducted during the inquiry, information the respondent provided to the University and the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by applicable regulations; (3) if an investigation is conducted, the investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) considered or relied on during the investigation, including, but not limited to, research records, the transcripts of each interview conducted pursuant to applicable regulations, and information the respondent provided to the University; (4) decision(s) by the Institutional Deciding Official, such as the written decision from the Institutional Deciding Official; (5) the complete record of any other relevant institutional proceedings; (b) a single index listing all of items (1) through (5) above; (c) a general description of the records that were sequestered but not considered or relied on.
• Intentionally. To act intentionally means to act with the aim of carrying out the act.
• Investigation. Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record that meets the criteria of and follows the documented procedures of this policy.
• 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. 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. Plagiarism does not include self-plagiarism or authorship or authorship 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 and will be handled among authors in accordance with applicable publication criteria and University Authorship Guidelines and with assistance of appropriate University offices as needed.
• 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. Research in general means a systematic experiment, study, evaluation, demonstration, or survey designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge (basic research) or specific knowledge (applied research) by establishing, discovering, developing, elucidating, or confirming information or underlying mechanisms.
• Research Integrity Officer. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) refers to the institutional official responsible for administering the University’s written policy and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct.
• Research Integrity Officer Designee (RIO Designee): An impartial individual appointed by the RIO to coordinate specific tasks in a research misconduct proceeding (e.g., intake, assessment, sequestration logistics, record-keeping, communications, timeline tracking) under the RIO’s direction. The designee does not serve as the RIO and does not make material determinations or sign official actions; final authority remains with the RIO.
• Research misconduct. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. 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 addressed under this Policy, and as applicable, federal agency processes.
• 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.

Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities

Institution

Ģ����ý’s General Responsibilities

The University will, to the extent possible and as allowed by law, limit disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while conducting the research misconduct proceedings to those who need to know, inform all institutional members about this policy and procedures, and make this policy and procedures publicly available. After the Institutional Deciding Official’s final determination, the limitation of disclosure to those who “need-to-know” may be reconsidered in light of the outcome of the proceeding. Any disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses after the proceedings have concluded will be made only as required or permitted by applicable law and University policy. The University will respond to each allegation of research misconduct in a thorough, competent, objective, and fair manner. The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure the cooperation of respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to their providing information, research records, and other evidence.

The University will cooperate with any pertinent agency with ultimate authority over the research misconduct proceeding or compliance review, including addressing deficiencies or additional allegations in the institutional record if directed by such agency and assist in administering and enforcing any administrative actions imposed on institutional members. The University may also take steps to correct published data as appropriate or acknowledge that data may be unreliable.

Ģ����ý’s Responsibilities During and After a Research Misconduct Proceeding

Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, the University will maintain confidentiality for any records or evidence from which research participants might be identified and will limit disclosure to those who need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding. Before or at the time of notifying the respondent of the allegation(s) and whenever additional items become known or relevant, the University will promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain all research records and other evidence and sequester them securely. As appropriate, the University will make reasonable efforts to ensure respondent’s research is minimally impacted throughout the proceeding. The University will ensure that the institutional record contains all required elements, i.e., research records that were compiled and considered during the proceedings, assessment documentation, and inquiry and/or investigation reports. Upon completion of the inquiry, the University will provide any relevant funding or oversight agency with the required documentation and add it to the institutional record. The institution will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered research records and other evidence in a secure manner for seven years after completion of the institutional and/or agency proceedings.

The University will provide information related to the alleged research misconduct and proceedings to relevant funding or oversight agencies upon request and transfer custody or provide copies of the institutional record or any component of it and any sequestered evidence, regardless of whether the evidence is included in the institutional record. Additionally, the University will promptly notify such agency of any special circumstances that may arise.

Disclosure of the identity of respondents, complainants, and witnesses while the University is conducting the research misconduct proceedings is limited to those who need to know, which the University will determine consistently with a thorough, competent, objective, and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Those who need to know may include institutional review boards, journals, editors, publishers, co-authors, and collaborating institutions.

The University has the responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect any individual involved in conducting or reviewing the proceeding from retaliation.

Ģ����ý’s Responsibilities to the Complainant(s)

The University will provide confidentiality consistent with applicable laws for all complainants in a research misconduct proceeding. The University will also take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant(s). The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of complainants and to protect these individuals from retaliation by respondents and/or other institutional members. If the University chooses to notify one complainant of the inquiry results in a case, all complainants will be notified by the University, to the extent possible.

Ģ����ý’s Responsibilities to the Respondent(s)

As with complainants, the University will provide confidentiality consistent with applicable laws to all respondents in a research misconduct proceeding. The University will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations being made against them. The University will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent. Respondents and witnesses may have a support person of their choosing, who is not otherwise a party or a witness, present during any part of their participation in the process. Such persons are permitted to provide support for the Respondent or witness but may not speak on their behalf. Support persons may not intervene or interfere with an interview or any aspect of the proceeding. When appropriate, the University will give the respondent(s) copies of or reasonable supervised access to the sequestered research records. The University will notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted, provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report, and attach the respondent’s comments to the final inquiry report. If an investigation is commenced, the University will notify the respondent, provide written notice of any additional allegations raised against them not previously addressed by the inquiry report, and will allow the respondent(s) an opportunity to review the witness transcripts with redactions, as appropriate to protect witness identity. The University will give the respondent(s) an opportunity to read and comment on the draft investigation report and any information or allegations added to the institutional record. The University will give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.

The University will bear the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for making a finding of research misconduct. The University will make all reasonable, practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of respondents against whom no finding of research misconduct is made. The ability of respondents to continue their research, if impacted, may depend on other University policies.

Ģ����ý’s Responsibilities to Committee Members

The University will ensure that a committee or person acting on the University’s behalf conducts research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and applicable regulations. The University will take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good-faith committee members and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

Ģ����ý’s Responsibilities to the Witness[es]

The University will maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible for all witnesses. The University will take precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the proceedings do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the witnesses. The University will also take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of witnesses and to protect these individuals from retaliation.

Research Integrity Officer

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the institutional official responsible for administering this policy and the procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct in compliance with applicable laws. The same individual will not serve as both the Institutional Deciding Official and the RIO. In certain cases, the RIO may conduct an inquiry in lieu of an inquiry committee, and, if needed, the RIO (or inquiry committee) may utilize one or more subject matter experts to assist them in the inquiry. When subject matter experts are involved, the University will take precautions to ensure that individuals do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts and that confidentiality is maintained.

The RIO may, when necessary to ensure continuity and appropriate expertise, appoint another qualified individual to perform one or more RIO responsibilities under the Associate Vice President for Research Integrity’s oversight. If the RIO has an unresolved conflict, the Institutional Deciding Official will appoint a qualified alternative RIO, who is free from unresolved conflicts, for the proceeding.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or RIO Designee will promptly assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct and within the scope of this policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The assessment only involves the review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation. If the RIO or RIO Designee determines that the requirements for an inquiry are met, they shall document the assessment, promptly sequester all research records and other evidence per relevant regulations, and promptly initiate the inquiry. If the RIO or RIO Designee determines that requirements for an inquiry are not met, they will prepare sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a subsequent review regarding the University’s decision not to conduct an inquiry. The University will keep this documentation and related records in a secure manner for seven years and provide them to relevant oversight agencies upon request. The RIO, in coordination with the Office of Counsel, ensures the University cooperates fully with relevant oversight agencies during any oversight reviews and administrative hearings or appeals.

Complainant

The complainant is the person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct. The complainant brings research misconduct allegations directly to the attention of the University or a relevant agency official through any means of communication.

The complainant will make allegations in good faith, as it is defined in this policy, as having a reasonable belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony, based on the information known to the complainant at the time. Complainants should provide and/or identify all relevant information in their possession or knowledge relating to the allegation, even though evidence is not required to make an allegation. Allegations are evaluated in accordance with applicable criteria. An individual found not to have acted in good faith may be referred for action under applicable University policies.

Respondent

The respondent is the individual against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or who is the subject of a research misconduct proceeding, and there shall be no finding of misconduct absent the respondent’s written admission or a determination based on the preponderance of the evidence. The respondent may put forth evidence of honest error or difference of opinion and has the burden of going forward with and proving such affirmative defenses by a preponderance of evidence, , and the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent. The respondent’s destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where a preponderance of evidence establishes that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. The respondent’s failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request. Respondents may have a support person of their choosing, who is not otherwise a party or a witness, present during any part of their participation in the process. Such persons are permitted to provide support for the Respondent but may not speak on their behalf. Support persons may not intervene or interfere with an interview or any aspect of the proceeding. Respondents also have the right to identify potential witnesses.

The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews but will be provided with a transcript of the interview after it takes place, with redactions only as appropriate to protect witness identity to the greatest extent possible. The respondent will have opportunities to (a) view and comment on the inquiry report, (b) view and comment on the investigation report, and (c) submit any comments on the draft investigation report to the University within 30 days of receiving it.

If admitting to research misconduct, the respondent will sign a written statement specifying the affected research records and confirming the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.

The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a research misconduct proceeding.

Committee Members

Committee members are experts who act in good faith to cooperate with the research misconduct proceedings by impartially carrying out their assigned duties for the purpose of helping the University meet its responsibilities under the applicable regulations. Committee members will have relevant scientific expertise and be free of unresolved conflicts of interest with any of the parties involved.

Committee members will conduct research misconduct proceedings consistent with this policy and any applicable regulations. The committee members, engaged in an inquiry, will determine whether an investigation is warranted, documenting the decision in an inquiry report.

During an investigation, committee members participate in recorded interviews of each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent(s). The Committee will also determine whether or not the respondent(s) engaged in research misconduct and document their decision in the investigation report.

The University may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment. The Committee will consider respondent(s) comments and, if requested by the Committee , complainant(s) comments on the inquiry/investigation report(s) and document their considerations in the pertinent report. An inquiry or investigation into multiple respondents may convene with the same committee members, but there will be separate inquiry or investigation reports and separate research misconduct determinations for each respondent. Committee members may serve for more than one proceeding in cases with multiple respondents. If appropriate, Committee members may also serve for both the inquiry and the investigation. The RIO will assess potential unresolved conflicts before confirming committee membership; respondent(s) will be notified of proposed committee membership and may object to proposed members based upon a demonstrated unresolved conflict. All potential committee members, internal and external to the University, will be required to sign a Conflicts and Confidentiality Statement prior to being proposed to the respondent(s)

Witnesses

Witnesses are those people who have been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the proceeding. Witnesses provide information for review during research misconduct proceedings. Witnesses will 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.

Institutional Deciding Official

The Vice President for Research shall serve as the University’s Institutional Deciding Official (IDO). If the IDO has an unresolved conflict, the Provost or President of the University will appoint a qualified alternative IDO who is free from unresolved conflicts for the proceeding.

The IDO will make the final determination whether to accept the inquiry and investigation reports, findings, and any recommendations contained therein, including recommendations for administrative or other actions to address the consequences of the research misconduct in accordance with relevant laws and University policies.

The IDO documents their determination in a written decision that includes whether research misconduct occurred, and if so, what kind and who committed it, and a description of the relevant actions the University has taken or will take in accord with this or other University policies, including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion. The IDO’s written decision becomes part of the institutional record.

Where appropriate, such as with institutional administrative actions, the IDO will consult with the Provost, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Medical Center, Office of Counsel (OGC), and other members of University leadership or administration, including the Deans of relevant schools. To the extent other University policies govern specific administrative actions, including the Policy on Tenure and Promotion and Code of Conduct, such other policies shall control any such administrative action or related appeal, and nothing in this Policy grants the IDO any additional authority beyond those described in this Policy to impose any action, sanction, or discipline.

Procedures for Addressing Allegations of Research Misconduct

Reporting Allegations of Research Misconduct

Each member of the University has an ethical duty to report suspected research misconduct in good faith. Allegations of suspected research misconduct can be communicated via oral or written communication to the RIO, the ORISE email address or via the research misconduct reporting line. Information on how to report is available on the ORISE website. Anonymous allegations may be submitted; however, they must include enough information to allow the RIO to conduct an assessment. The University will maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible, but full anonymity cannot be guaranteed. The RIO or RIO Designee will respond as soon as possible to allegations to acknowledge their receipt.

Assessment

An assessment’s purpose is to determine whether an allegation warrants an inquiry. An assessment is intended to be a review of readily accessible information relevant to the allegation.

Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the RIO or RIO Designee will promptly determine whether the allegation appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct and within the scope of this policy and is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If the RIO or RIO Designee determines that the allegation meets these criteria, they will promptly: (a) document the assessment and (b) initiate an inquiry and sequester all research records and other evidence. The RIO or RIO Designee must document the assessment and retain the assessment documentation securely for seven years after completion of the misconduct proceedings. Where external sponsors are involved, the Director of the Office of Research and Project Administration (ORPA) will be consulted regarding compliance with the reporting requirements of the external sponsor(s) and as appropriate, will ensure that notice is given to such sponsor(s) in accordance with their regulations and guidelines. As appropriate, the RIO or ORPA will consult with the Office of Counsel.

If the RIO or DRIO Designee determines that the alleged misconduct does not meet the criteria to proceed to an inquiry, they will prepare sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a subsequent review regarding the University’s decision not to proceed to an inquiry and securely retain this documentation for seven years. When deemed appropriate by theRIO, the RIO will inform the respondent of the allegation and the outcome of the assessment. In the RIO’s discretion, the RIO may also inform the complainant of the outcome.

Inquiry

An inquiry is warranted if the allegation (a) falls within the definition of research misconduct under PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 93 and this policy, (b) is within the applicability criteria of § 93.102 of the PHS regulations, and (c) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. An inquiry’s purpose is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether an allegation warrants an investigation. An inquiry does not require a full review of all related evidence. The University will complete the inquiry within 90 days of initiating it unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which case the University will sufficiently document the reasons for exceeding the time limit in the inquiry report.

Sequestering Evidence and Notifying the Respondent

Before or at the time of notifying the respondent(s), the University will obtain the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence that are pertinent to the proceeding, inventory these materials, sequester the materials in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years. The University has a duty to obtain, inventory, and securely sequester evidence that extends to whenever additional items become known or relevant to the inquiry or investigation.

At the time of or before beginning the inquiry, the University will make a good-faith effort to notify the respondent(s), in writing, that an allegation(s) of research misconduct has been raised against them, the relevant research records have been sequestered, and an inquiry will be conducted to decide whether to proceed with an investigation. If additional allegations are raised, the University will notify the respondent(s) in writing. When appropriate, the University will give the respondent(s) copies of, or reasonably supervised access to, the sequestered materials.

If additional respondents are identified, the University will provide written notification to the new respondent(s). All additional respondents will be given the same rights and opportunities as the initial respondent. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent.

The RIO will follow the University’s Standard Operating Procedure on Sequestration of Evidence in Research Misconduct Proceedings when collecting evidence, as amended from time to time. This document can be found on the ORISE website.

Initiating the Inquiry and Ensuring Neutrality

The inquiry will be conducted by the RIO, or by a committee of individuals at least one of whom has appropriate subject matter expertise, depending upon the subject matter of the allegation. The committee will be comprised of at least three (3) qualified individuals, typically faculty members. The RIO may identify potential committee members external to the University community as needed to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to allow for adequate subject matter expertise. The University will ensure that the RIO, RIO Designee, or committee members understand their charge, keep the identities of respondents, complainants, and witnesses confidential, and conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and applicable regulations. The RIO, RIO Designee, or committee may rely on ad hoc subject matter resources as needed to assist in the inquiry. The RIO will assess potential unresolved conflicts before confirming ad hoc subject matter resources; respondents will be notified of committee membership and may object to members for unresolved conflicts. All potential committee members, internal and external to the University, will be required to sign a Conflicts and Confidentiality Statement prior to being proposed to the respondent(s).

Determining Whether an Investigation Is Warranted

The RIO, RIO Designee, or inquiry committee will conduct a preliminary review of the evidence, which may include an interview of the respondent, witnesses, or complainant. An investigation is warranted if (a) there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct in this policy; and (b) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation is credible, specific, and may have substance to warrant an investigation.

Unless the respondent has made an acceptable admission, the RIO, or inquiry committee will not determine if research misconduct occurred, nor assess whether the alleged misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless; such a determination is not made until the case proceeds to an investigation.

Documenting the Inquiry

At the conclusion of the inquiry, regardless of whether an investigation is warranted, the RIO, RIO Designee, or committee will prepare a written inquiry report. The contents of a complete inquiry report will include:

1. The names, professional aliases, and positions of the respondent and complainant(s).
2. A description of the allegation(s) of research misconduct.
3. Details about the funding source, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal sources of funding
4. The composition of the inquiry committee, if used, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. An inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence and description of how sequestration was conducted.
6. Transcripts of interviews. Transcriptions will contain redactions, as appropriate to protect witness identity.
7. Inquiry timeline and procedural history.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. The basis for recommending that any allegation(s) warrant an investigation.
10. The basis on which any allegation(s) do not merit further investigation.
11. Any comments on or responses to the inquiry report by the respondent or the complainant(s), including any materials submitted as part of an affirmative defense by the respondent
12. Any institutional actions implemented, including internal communications or external communications with journals or funding agencies.
13. Documentation of potential evidence of honest error or difference of opinion.

Completing the Inquiry

The University will give the respondent a copy of the draft inquiry report for review and comment. Any comments received by the respondent(s) within fourteen calendar days will be attached to the final inquiry report. Extensions may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The University may, but is not required to, provide relevant portions of the report to a complainant for comment.

The RIO or RIO Designee will notify the respondent of the inquiry’s final outcome and provide the respondent with copies of the final inquiry report, the PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 93, when applicable, and this policy and procedures. The University may, but is not required to, notify a complainant whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. If the University chooses to provide notice to one complainant in a case, it will provide notice, to the extent possible, to all complainants in the case.

If an Investigation Is Not Warranted:

If the RIO or RIO Designee, or inquiry committee determines that an investigation is not warranted, the RIO or RIO Designee will prepare sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a subsequent review, upon request by pertinent agencies, regarding the University’s decision not to proceed to an investigation. The records will be securely retained for a period of seven years after the termination of the inquiry.

If an Investigation is Warranted:

If the RIO, or inquiry committee determines that an investigation is warranted, the RIO or RIO Designee will: (a) within a reasonable amount of time and as soon as possible after this decision, provide written notice to the respondent(s) of the decision to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct, including any allegations of research misconduct not addressed during the inquiry; and (b) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted, provide pertinent agencies with a copy of the inquiry report.

On a case-by-case basis, the University may choose to notify the complainant that there will be an investigation of the alleged misconduct; the University will take the same notification action for all complainants in cases where there is more than one complainant.

Investigation

The purpose of an investigation is to formally develop a factual record, pursue leads, examine the record, and recommend finding(s) to the IDO, who will make the final decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, on each allegation and any institutional actions. As part of its investigation, the University 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. If the research is federally funded, the University will ensure compliance with federal deadlines and reporting obligations, including notifications to ORI.

Notifying the Respondent and Sequestering Evidence

The RIO or RIO Designee will notify the respondent(s) of the allegation(s) within 30 days of determining that an investigation is warranted and before the investigation begins. If any additional respondent(s) are identified during the investigation, the University will notify them of the allegation(s) and provide them with an opportunity to respond. Only allegations specific to a particular respondent will be included in the notification to that respondent. If the University identifies additional respondents during the investigation, it may choose to either conduct a separate inquiry or add the new respondent(s) to the ongoing investigation. The RIO or RIO Designee will sequester the original or substantially equivalent copies of all research records and other evidence, inventory these materials, store them in a secure manner, and retain them for seven years after its proceeding or any HHS or other external agency proceeding, whichever is later.

Convening an Investigation Committee

The investigation will be conducted by a committee of individuals at least one of whom has appropriate subject matter expertise, depending upon the subject matter of the allegation. The committee will be comprised of at least three (3) qualified individuals, typically faculty members. The RIO may identify potential committee members external to the University community as needed to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to allow for adequate subject matter expertise. After vetting investigation committee members for conflicts and appropriate scientific expertise, the RIO or RIO Designee will convene the committee and ensure that the members understand their responsibility to conduct the research misconduct proceedings in compliance with this policy and applicable regulations. The respondent will be notified of the committee composition and be given an opportunity to report any unresolved conflicts with any of the proposed members. The investigation committee will conduct interviews, pursue leads, and examine all research records and other evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegation(s). The RIO or RIO Designee will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough, sufficiently documented, and impartial and unbiased to the maximum extent practicable. The RIO or RIO Designee will notify the respondent in writing of any additional allegations raised against them during the investigation.

Conducting Interviews

The Committee, with support from the RIO, will interview each respondent, complainant(s), and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent. All relevant exhibits will be numbered, and any exhibits shown to the interviewee during the interview will be referred to by that number. The RIO or RIO Designee will record and transcribe interviews during the investigation and make the transcripts available to the interviewee for correction. The RIO or RIO Designee will include the transcript(s) with any corrections and exhibits in the institutional record of the investigation. The respondent will not be present during the witnesses’ interviews, but the institution will provide the respondent with a transcript of each interview, with redactions as appropriate to protect the identity of the witnesses to the greatest extent possible.

Documenting the Investigation

The University will complete all aspects of the investigation within 180 days. The Committee, with support from the RIO, will conduct the investigation, prepare the draft investigation report for each respondent, and provide the opportunity for respondents to comment. The RIO or RIO Designee will document the IDO’s final decision and transmit the institutional record (including the final investigation report and IDO’s decision) to relevant agencies. If the investigation takes more than 180 days to complete, and involves PHS-funded research, the RIO or RIO Designee will ask ORI in writing for an extension. The RIO or RIO Designee will document the reasons for exceeding the 180-day period in the investigation report.

The investigation report for each respondent will include:

1. Description of the nature of the allegation(s) of research misconduct, including any additional allegation(s) addressed during the research misconduct proceeding.
2. Description and documentation of funding support, including any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal sources of funding support. This documentation includes known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with PHS and non-PHS Federal agencies.
3. Description of the specific allegation(s) of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation of the respondent.
4. Composition of investigation committee, including name(s), position(s), and subject matter expertise.
5. Inventory of sequestered research records and other evidence, except records the University 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 any sequestration was conducted during the investigation.
6. Transcripts of all interviews conducted. Transcriptions will contain redactions, as appropriate to protect witness identity to the greatest extent possible
7. Identification of the specific published papers, manuscripts submitted but not accepted for publication (including online publication), federal funding applications, progress reports, presentations, posters, other research records that contain the allegedly falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized material.
8. Any scientific or forensic analyses conducted.
9. A copy of these policies and procedures.
10. Any comments made by the respondent and complainant(s) on the draft investigation report and the committee’s consideration of those comments.
11. A statement for each separate allegation of whether the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct.

If the committee recommends a finding of research misconduct for an allegation, the Committee’s investigation report will include a finding for each allegation. These findings will (a) identify the individual(s) who committed the research misconduct; (b) indicate whether the misconduct was falsification, fabrication, and/or plagiarism; (c) indicate whether the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; (d) identify any significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community and that the allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence; (e) summarize the facts and analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any explanation by the respondent; (f) identify the specific funding support; and (g) state whether any publications need correction or retraction.

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.

Completing the Investigation

The University 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 respondent will submit any comments on the draft report to the University within 30 days of receiving the draft investigation report. If the University 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 draft report. The University will add any comments received to the final investigation report.

Institutional Deciding Official Review of the Investigation Report

The IDO will review the investigation report and make a final written determination of whether the University found research misconduct and, if so, who committed the misconduct. In this statement, the IDO will also include a description of (i) any relevant institutional actions taken or to be taken; (ii) any disciplinary proceedings or other actions taken pursuant to separate University policies and procedures including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion; and (iii) the relevant University officials, leadership or administration and processes that led to such actions. Where appropriate, such as with institutional administrative actions, the IDO will consult with the Provost, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Medical Center, and other members of University leadership or administration, including the Deans of relevant schools. Nothing in this Policy grants the IDO any additional authority beyond that described in this Policy to impose any action, sanction, or punishment.

Creating and Transmitting the Institutional Record

After the IDO has made a final determination of research misconduct findings, the University will add the IDO’s written decision to the investigation report and organize the institutional record, as defined above, in a logical manner.

After the IDO has made a final written determination, the University will transmit the institutional record to pertinent agencies, including ORI if the misconduct occurred on a project that was federally funded, in compliance with relevant deadlines and reporting obligations.

Other Procedures and Special Circumstances

Multiple Institutions and Multiple Respondents

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple institutions, the University may work closely with the other affected institutions to determine whether a joint research misconduct proceeding will be conducted. If so, the cooperating institutions will choose an institution to serve as the lead institution. In a joint research misconduct proceeding, 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.

If the alleged research misconduct involves multiple respondents, the University may either conduct a separate inquiry for each new respondent or add them to the ongoing proceedings. The University must give additional respondent(s) notice of and an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Respondent Admissions

The respondent may at any time during the proceeding prepare a written admission of research misconduct or enter into a written agreement with the University resolving certain issues material to the proceeding. The University will promptly notify relevant agencies in advance if at any point during the proceedings (including the assessment, inquiry, or investigation, or appeal stage) it plans to close a research misconduct case because the respondent has admitted to committing research misconduct , or if the respondent has entered into a written agreement with the University resolving certain issues material to the proceeding If the respondent admits to research misconduct, the University will not close the case until providing the applicable agency with the respondent’s signed, written admission. The admission must state the specific fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism that occurred, which research records were affected, and that the research misconduct constituted a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. The University will not close the case until giving such agency a written statement confirming the respondent’s culpability and explaining how the University determined that the respondent’s admission fully addresses the scope of the misconduct.

Appeals

Respondents have the right to appeal the Institutional Deciding Official’s final determination and/or the administrative actions resulting from the research misconduct proceeding unless an appeal is separately provided for under another University policy governing the administrative action, including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion, in which case appeals should be submitted in accord with such other University policy, and the outcome of the appeal reported to the RIO. Appeals are limited in scope and must follow the procedures below.

1. Who May Appeal
   1. The Respondent(s) may submit an appeal of the final determination or any administrative actions that are not separately governed by another University policy, including the Policy on Tenure and Promotion.
   2. If the RIO determines it is appropriate to notify a complainant of the result, as permitted and appropriate under University policy and federal regulations, the RIO may notify the complainant of outcomes. If notified, the complainants may raise concerns about procedural irregularities to the RIO; however, this is not an appeal.

2. Grounds for Appeal
   1. Appeals must be based on one or more of the following:
      1. A substantial procedural error in adhering to the University’s Research Misconduct Policy that materially affected the outcome; or
      2. New, significant evidence that was not reasonably available during the investigation and that could have materially affected the Inquiry or Investigation Committee’s determinations; or
      3. Administrative actions that are disproportionate to the findings; however, if a separate University policy governs the administrative action, including the Code of Conduct and Policy on Tenure and Promotion, any appeal of the administrative action should be submitted in accord with such other University policy, and the outcome of the appeal reported to the RIO.

3. Timeframe and Contents
   1. Appeals must be submitted in writing via email with attachments within twenty one (21) calendar days of receipt of the IDO’s written decision.
   2. The appeal must identify specific portions of the Inquiry or Investigative Committee report, or IDO’s written determination that are being appealed, with exact references by page and line number. For each item, the appellant must identify the alleged error and explain the nature of the error with specific references or citations to the institutional record. The appeal must be clear and specific and must be limited to providing new information or arguments that were not previously submitted in respondent’s comments on draft inquiry or investigation reports. If the appeal is based on new, significant evidence, respondent shall also provide a detailed explanation regarding why such evidence was not previously provided during the course of the proceeding.

4. To Whom the Appeal is Made
   1. Appeals must be submitted in writing via email with attachments to the RIO.
   2. Appeals must be addressed to the Provost through the Office of the Provost. If the Provost has an unresolved conflict, the University President will designate an alternative senior official to review the appeal.

5. Review of Appeals
   1. The Provost will conduct a thorough review of the appeal and of any relevant portions of the institutional record.
      1. The Provost’s review shall be limited to the contents of the appeal and the institutional record, unless respondent provides sufficient justification for including new, material evidence that was not previously provided during the course of the proceeding.
   2. The Provost will issue a written decision either upholding, modifying, or directing the RIO to obtain further review of the matter which may include performing parts of the proceeding again, such as reconvening or reconstituting the Committee, or supplementing the record with review of additional matters or reconsidering aspects of the determination.
   3. The decision on appeal is final within the University, subject only to obligations for external reporting or review (e.g., by HHS ORI).

Restoration of Reputation

If the University makes no finding of research misconduct, the RIO will, upon request and as appropriate, make all reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the respondent’s reputation and ability to continue their academic career. The RIO will collaborate with other University offices and leaders, as necessary.

Other Special Circumstances

At any time during misconduct proceedings, the University will immediately notify ORI when the research is PHS funded, or other relevant agencies and with confidentiality in mind, if any of the following circumstances arise:

1. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
2. HHS or other external agency resources or interests are threatened.
3. Research activities should be suspended.
4. There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law.
5. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
6. HHS or other external agency may need to take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.

Records Retention

The University will maintain the institutional record and all sequestered evidence, including physical objects (regardless of whether the evidence is part of the institutional record), in a secure manner for seven years after the completion of the proceeding or the completion of any HHS or other external agency proceeding, whichever is later, unless custody has been transferred to HHS or another external agency.

The post Policy on Research Misconduct appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

This policy ensures that compensation practices for University Senior Leaders align with the University’s governance standards and applicable oversight requirements. Guest lecturing in University offered courses is an important way for senior leaders to contribute to the academic mission of the University. As such, receipt of additional compensation for such activities is generally not permissible.

Definitions

• Guest Lecture: A single or occasional instructional session delivered as part of a credit or non-credit bearing course. A guest lecture does not involve designing or managing the course, grading, or being listed as the instructor of record.
• University Senior Leaders: Includes the President, Provost, Executive and Senior Vice Presidents, Vice Presidents, Deans, and all members of the President’s Senior Leadership Group and Cabinet as well as those at the Medical Center with Vice President in their title.
• Compensation: Any form of payment, including stipends or salary supplements, offered in exchange for instructional services.

Scope/Compliance

This policy applies to all University Senior Leaders, as defined herein. All University departments, schools, and programs must follow this policy when planning for University Senior Leaders to provide guest lecturing contributions.

Policy Details

A. General Rules
University Senior Leaders may not receive additional compensation for guest lecturing in any Ģ����ý credit or non-credit bearing courses. Any guest lecturing services provided by University Senior Leaders are considered part of the University Senior Leader’s existing institutional service responsibilities and should be provided without additional pay. In rare cases, an exception may be considered, but only with prior written approval from the President, Senior Vice President for Human Resources (CHRO), and when applicable also by the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the Board (CCC) for applicable Senior Leaders whose compensation is reviewed by the CCC. Without this advance approval, no additional compensation—whether in the form of stipends, or other payments—may be offered, accepted, or processed. As per the Honorarium Policy, Honorarium may not be paid to a University employee.

B. Governance and Oversight
Compensation for University Senior Leaders is subject to oversight by the Senior Vice President of Human Resources for the University and for certain executives by the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the University’s Board of Trustees. The Senior Vice President for Human Resources ensures that all pay practices for University Senior Leaders are compliant with regulatory standards, and consistent with the University’s governance principles. Any proposal to compensate a University Senior Leader for guest lecturing must be reviewed in light of these standards and is not eligible for retroactive approval. All requests for exceptions to this policy should be submitted to the Senior Vice President for Human Resources, who will move the request through the proper approval process.

C. Conditions and Restrictions
This policy applies specifically to guest lecturing activities that occur within Ģ����ý credit and non-credit bearing courses. These activities typically involve a one-time or occasional appearance and do not include responsibilities such as course design, course management, grading, or being listed as the instructor of record. When a University Senior Leader engages in formal course instruction, a separate review and approval process by the President, Provost, Senior Vice President for Human Resources, and when applicable the Compensation Compliance Committee of the Board of Trustees must be followed.

1. The following restrictions apply:
   1. Additional compensation to University Senior Leaders may not be offered, accepted, or processed for guest lecturing unless prior written approval is obtained from the President, the Senior Vice President for Human Resources, and when applicable the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the Board of Trustees.
   2. Retroactive approvals are not permitted.
   3. Any violation of this policy may result in canceled or delayed payments and may be subject to additional internal review.

D. Exclusions and Exceptions

1. This policy does not apply to:
   1. Faculty or staff who are not part of the University Senior Leader group as defined by this policy.

2. Exceptions to this policy are rare and will only be granted when:
   1. A compelling institutional justification is provided in writing.
   2. Approval is received in advance from the President, Senior Vice President for Human Resources, and when applicable the Committee on Compliance and Compensation of the Board of Trustees.

The post Senior Leader Compensation for Guest Lecturing appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

The Ģ����ý’s Faculty Handbook is the definitive guide for Rochester faculty. It explains governance, appointments, promotion, tenure pathways, workplace policies, and the full range of benefits and protections.

Download the University’s Faculty Handbook

The post University Faculty Handbook appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

The University is committed to providing a safe working environment for all employees. As part of that commitment, the University has implemented this Policy consistent with the requirements of New York State Labor Law Section 27-e. The University maintains compliance with all state and federal statutory provisions and any applicable local laws concerning violence against retail workers and remedies available to victims of workplace violence, including compliance with the New York State Retail Worker Safety Act, as amended. This Policy may be modified by the University as workplace conditions and applicable law require.

Definitions

• Retail employee: Is defined by the Act as an employee working at a “retail store” for an employer.
• Retail store: Is defined by the Act as a store that sells consumer commodities at retail and which is not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on the premises.

Scope/Compliance

This policy applies to all University employees deemed to be retail employees pursuant to the New York Retail Worker Safety Act. Employees who have questions about application of this policy may contact their Human Resources Business Partner.

Guidelines

In compliance with New York Retail Worker Safety Act the University provides its retail employees, at the time of hire and at every annual workplace retail violence prevention training, a notice of the University’s Retail Workplace Violence Prevention Policy and the information presented at the University’s (search:”retail worker safety”). Such notice will be provided in writing in English and in the language identified by each retail employee as their primary language as required by applicable law.

The University will provide interactive information and training to all retail employees upon hire and annually thereafter. Training topics will include:

1. 1. The policy and how to obtain a copy of the policy.
   2. Retail Worker Safety Act requirements as contained in Labor Law Section 27-e
   3. De-escalation tactics and measures employees can use to protect themselves from workplace violence
   4. Active shooter information and drills
   5. Emergency procedures and workplace-specific emergency exits and meeting places
   6. How to report workplace violence incidents or concerns without fear of reprisal
   7. Instruction on the use of security alarms or buttons, and other related emergency devices.

Risk Prevention

A. The University recognizes that its retail employees may find certain workplace circumstances can heighten safety risks, and therefore offers guidance as to methods that can be used to mitigate these safety risks.

1. Factors/situations that may create risk for University retail employees include:
   1. Working late night or early morning hours
   2. Exchanging money with the public
   3. Working alone or in small numbers
   4. Working in a location with uncontrolled public access
   5. Duties that involve working with valuable property or products

1. Mitigation efforts the University may utilize to support a safe environment and prevent incidents of workplace violence include:
   1. Establishing and communicating reporting protocols for incidents of workplace violence and other safety issues.
   2. Performing risk evaluations through reports of incidents to identify factors that contribute to workplace safety risks.
   3. Assessing past incidents of workplace violence to prevent future occurrences.
   4. Implementing policies prohibiting the possession of weapons on University premises.
   5. Facilitating collaboration between Public Safety, Environmental Health and Safety and retail locations to identify risks and improve training protocols to support retail employees.
   6. Communicating to retail employees upon hire and annually thereafter regarding policies and trainings related to workplace safety.
   7. Providing retail employees with centralized training upon hire and annually thereafter, including topics such as de-escalation tactics, and active shooter response.
   8. Installing Blue Light Phones throughout campus, allowing employees to contact a Public Safety Officer immediately.
   9. Installing silent response buttons to warn others of a danger of workplace violence or to summon assistance in the event of a workplace violence incident.
   10. Notifying and assisting the appropriate authorities of workplace violence incidents as appropriate.
2. Suggested mitigation techniques employees can utilize to keep themselves and the workplace safe from violence include:
   1. Awareness and recognition of early warning signs of potentially violent behavior in customers and/or coworkers, including: intimidation, bullying, verbal abuse, other discourteous/disrespectful conduct, behavioral changes (mood swings, uncharacteristic displays of emotion, depression, withdrawal, paranoia), signs of abuse of alcohol or drugs.
   2. Promptly alerting supervisory staff or co-workers to assist with de-escalation tactics as outlined in University-provided training.
   3. Requesting assistance by contacting Public Safety at x13(275-3333) for onsite retail locations or 911 for locations not on University owned/operated property.
   4. Following
   5. Awareness of emergency exits and meeting places to be utilized in the event of workplace violence.
   6. Participating in University related to workplace safety (Search: “retail worker training”)

4. Manager and supervisor responsibilities:
   1. Managers and supervisors of retail employees are responsible for implementing and maintaining this policy in their work areas, ensuring annual training is completed, and answering employee questions about the policy in conjunction with the appropriate Human Resources Business Partner.
   2. As with all retail employees, managers and supervisors of retail employees will receive notice of this policy and annual workplace violence prevention training.
   3. Managers and supervisors of retail employees should promptly communicate to the Department of Public Safety any concerns related to workplace violence, and as needed may request that a workplace safety assessment be conducted.
   4. Managers and supervisors of retail employees must communicate to employees within their units the appropriate emergency exits and meeting places to be utilized in the event of workplace violence.

B. Reporting Workplace Violence Incidents

1. Any University employee who witnesses or becomes aware of a workplace violence incident, or who believes a threat or act of physical or verbal violence against any person is imminent, must immediately report that behavior to the Department of Public Safety, and their supervisor.
   1. Where there is an immediate threat to the safety of the employee or others, or if a serious injury has occurred, the employee should immediately call or text the Department of Public Safety at (x13 for emergent situations from a University telephone). Offsite locations that do not have a dedicated DPS officer presence should contact 911 immediately and then notify DPS.
   2. When calling for assistance, the following information should be provided if available: location and description of incident/imminent threat.
   3. Where a workplace violence incident involves injuries, employees and supervisors should also complete the .
   4. Once in a place of safety, the employee must also notify their supervisor.

2. Situations involving employee misconduct that might present a safety risk to others should also be reported to Office of Human Resources.

C. Prohibition Against Retaliation

1. Retaliation against individuals who complain of workplace violence or the presence of factors or situations in the workplace that might place retail employees at risk of workplace violence, or who testify or assist in any proceeding under the law, is unlawful and prohibited.

The post Retail Workplace Violence Prevention appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

The University recognizes the need to provide reasonable incentive payments for individuals who participate in research as research subjects. This policy provides guidelines on such payments.

Research Subject Payments

Payments and incentives given to individuals for research participation are considered taxable payments for services and are subject to IRS income reporting requirements. The University must report all payments made to any single individual in any single calendar year that meet or exceed the IRS reporting threshold unless the recipient is a nonresident alien for tax purposes, in which case all amounts must be reported.

The Principal Investigator is responsible for adhering to the University’s policies and processes for obtaining and remitting the documentation required in connection with federal tax reporting requirements. The Principal Investigator must collect a completed W-9 from each research subject who receives payments of $1,500.00 or more per calendar year, per protocol. Tax reporting may also be required for research subjects who participate in multiple studies or receive other payments throughout the year. In these circumstances, Accounts Payable may request a department to collect a W-9 for a research subject, and departments must comply with this request. Regardless of amount, all payments made to an individual must be supported by complete and relevant support documentation, as detailed further in this policy.

Who is governed by this Policy

This policy applies to any University personnel involved with research and payments to research subjects.

Definitions

• Central Finance: Within this policy, Central Finance includes the Accounts Payable department, the University Controller organization, Treasury, and any other offices that process or coordinate payments, tax reporting, etc.

• Division/departments: References University department personnel directly engaged in making payments to research subjects. These personnel can be the Primary Investigator (PI) and/or other responsible administrative personnel for the research study.

• Expense Reimbursement: Payment to research subject/caregivers for documented, actual out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., transportation, parking, lodging, meals, etc.) incurred as a result of their study participation. Reimbursements that are substantiated with supporting documentation are not taxable and should not be included when computing if a person has reached the tax reporting threshold.

• IRS: Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America.

• Nonresident Alien for tax purposes: As defined by the IRS, any individual who is not a US citizen for tax purposes.

• Payment: Funds paid to an individual for their participation in research projects or reimbursements for expenses. See Payment Types for additional details, requirements, and conditions.

• Research Subject: Human Subject – A living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; OR Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.

• TIN/SSN: The Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) is used by the IRS in the administration of tax laws. The Social Security Number (SSN) is assigned to US citizens and some residents of the US while an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is assigned to others whose requests meet IRS criteria.

• US Citizen for tax purposes: The IRS treats US Citizens and Permanent Residents the same for tax reporting purposes. In the context of research subject payments, tax withholding is not required and amounts are reported for an individual when payments aggregated across the University meet or exceed the IRS reporting threshold.

Required Documentation

Regardless of payment amount, the information listed below is required to be captured by the division/department as part of the research record supporting payment to all research subjects. Payment documentation should be stored separately from research data.

• Subject’s name or identification number
• Date
• Amount
• IRS Form W-9 is required when payment(s) to a US Citizen/Permanent Resident reaches $1,500.00 or more
• All payments to Nonresident aliens for tax purposes require Form W-8BEN using the Sprintax system, which also requires the research subject’s email address.
• Social security number (SSN) of research subjects should not be retained at the division/department level for any reason. At the time that payments to a research subject are approaching $1,500.00, a W9 should be completed and immediately forwarded to Accounts Payable for retention.

Confidential or Legally Restricted information, including the name of the study, should be excluded from your submissions to Accounts Payable of W9s and payment requests, including Supplier Invoice Request. See for more information about the confidentiality of different types of data.

Payment Types

Below is an abbreviated list of payment methods available for payment to research subjects. Additional details can be found in the which outlines authorized methods for compensating research subjects.Payments using systems or mechanisms outside authorized methods are prohibited.

Authorized Payment Methods

• Use is required for IRB-approved studies unless an exception is approved.
• Candex: Use for all research subject payments to non-US persons and project payments not requiring IRB approval.

Transfer of items

Items used as part of the research project may be given to the research subject if there is no further value to the study or creates a burden to collect from the subject. Examples could be fit bits (fitness/health trackers), foot pedals, exercise kits, or similar. Occasionally research sponsors donate items of low value, such as bookbags, with or without logos. For any of these items given to the research subject, the value, in its final condition, should not exceed $100. Offering to the research subject to retain the study item or providing a donated item to the subject is not payment for research participation and is not required or expected.

Reimbursements

Reimbursement to the research subject, or their caregiver, for eligible documented out-of-pocket expenses is not subject to tax reporting provided the following requirements are met.

• Only actual expenses incurred may be reimbursed.
• Expenses must be related to participating in the study.
• As described in the study protocol, expenses reimbursed may be
  • travel-related: bus fare, airfare, uber/lyft and similar; for personal vehicle driven mileage rate must be used
  • lodging
  • meals
• Reimbursement amounts under $50.00 do not require supporting documentation in the form of receipts. Reimbursement amounts of $50.00 or more require a receipt or other documentation supporting the amount being reimbursed.

Special Situations

Research subject is a minor child

If the child is the research subject, they should be paid in their own name and social security number. The method of payment may impact whether payment can be made directly to the minor. If needed, an alternate payment method, for example other than the Participant Payments system, can be used to pay the minor directly.

Research subject is a nonresident alien

Per IRS regulations, the following tax reporting requirements exist for payments to nonresident aliens for tax purposes.

• Payments to nonresident aliens for studies conducted entirely outside of the US (e.g., online survey where non-US subjects are targeted, researcher traveled outside of US to conduct surveys/research on subjects) are exempt from IRS tax withholding. However, payments being made to individuals or entities outside the U.S. do require review and verification to ensure that financial assistance is not being provided to a blocked or sanctioned individual/entity.
• Otherwise, all research subject payments to nonresident aliens require 30% to be withheld for taxes and remitted to the IRS at the end of the month.

Resources

The provides information on procedural details, including additional forms and resources, related to information collection and reporting to Accounts Payable.

Related Policies

This listing includes the policies related to research subject payments, including considerations for potential tax reporting.

• Honorarium Policy: Defines the circumstances under which honoraria may be paid. Information on criteria, visa eligibility/requirements, tax withholding and reporting, as well as documentation requirements.
• : Information regarding payments to nonresident aliens for services and prizes/awards that are taxable and require tax withholding
• Petty Cash Policy: Policy governing establishment and use of petty cash funds
• Worker Classification: Employee vs. Independent Contractor: Provides the procedures for assessing whether an individual performing services for the University is properly classified as a University employee or as an independent contractor

Contacts

• Research Subject Payments Policy inquiries
  Accounts Payable
  AccountsPayable@ur.rochester.edu
• Business Expense Policy inquiries
  Accounts Payable
  AccountsPayable@ur.rochester.edu
• Employee and Student Expense Reimbursement related inquires
  Accounts Payable
  Business_Expense_Reimbursement@ur.rochester.edu
• Purchasing Buying and Paying Guide: Preferred procurement method, preferred suppliers, Workday P2P Functionality, Independent Contractors
  Corporate Purchasing
  or Procurement_Service_Center@ur.rochester.edu
• International considerations for research subject payments
  Office for Global Engagement
  Global@rochester.edu
• Award- and Grant-specific inquiries
  Office of Research Accounting and Costing Standards (ORACS)
  ORACS-NOA@finance.rochester.edu
• Tools and support to help faculty and staff with administration of clinical trials (i.e.: OnCore or Participant Payments)
  Office of Clinical Research

  Clinical_Research@URMC.Rochester.edu

• Institutional Review Board process and approval status
  Office for Human Subject Protection
  RSRB_Inquiry@URMC.Rochester.edu or your designated Specialist
• Tax reporting considerations outside of this policy
  Tax Department
  TaxDept@finance.rochester.edu

The post Research Subject Payments Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

The Ģ����ý (“University”) is committed to fostering, cultivating, and preserving an inclusive and welcoming culture to advance the University’s Mission to Learn, Discover, Heal, Create – and Make the World Ever Better. In support of our values and those of our society, the University is committed to not discriminating on the basis of age, color, disability, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military/veteran status, national origin, race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, citizenship status, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local law (Protected Characteristics). This commitment extends to non-discrimination in the administration of our policies, admissions, employment, access, and recruitment of candidates, for all persons consistent with our values and based on applicable law.

Scope

The policy applies to all University community members (including but not limited to applicants, students, faculty, staff, contractors, and users).

Policy Details

The Ģ����ý is committed to fostering, cultivating, and preserving an inclusive and welcoming culture to advance the University’s Mission to Learn, Discover, Heal, Create – and Make the World Ever Better. In support of our values and those of our society, the University is committed to not discriminating on the basis of age, color, disability, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military/veteran status, national origin, race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, citizenship status, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local law (Protected Characteristics). This commitment extends to non-discrimination in the administration of our policies, admissions, employment, access, and recruitment of candidates, for all persons consistent with our values and based on applicable law.

I. Policy Statement

The Ģ����ý does not discriminate in hiring, promotion, compensation, benefits, or any other aspect of employment on the basis of Protected Characteristic or perceived or actual affiliation/association with any other individual because of the Protected Characteristic of that other individual. This policy applies to all employees, applicants, faculty, staff, and students. Questions about this policy may be directed to the Associate Vice President for Civil Rights Compliance (585-275-1550).

II. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)

We are an equal opportunity employer and are dedicated to maintaining a workplace that is free from discrimination and harassment. All employment decisions, including recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, compensation, termination and disciplinary actions, will be based on merit, qualifications, and business needs.

III. Anti-Harassment Policy

Harassment, including but not limited to verbal, physical, or visual conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, will not be tolerated. This includes sexual harassment and any unwelcome conduct that affects an individual’s employment or academic experience.

IV. Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities

The Ģ����ý complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other applicable laws by providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. Employees or applicants in need of accommodations should contact their supervisor, a Human Resources Business Partner or other appropriate Human Resources Representatives (e.g., Return to Work Program personnel), or by completing the online Accommodations Request Form.

V. Reporting and Resolution

Any staff, faculty member, student or applicant for employment who believes they have been subjected to discrimination or harassment by any University employee, contractor, or vendor should report the matter. There are several options to report a concern about harassment or discrimination on the basis of a Protected Characteristic:

1. 2. Call 585-275-2430 and leave a detailed voice mail message spelling your name and providing contact information, along with a description of your concern
   3. Verbally or in writing (including, but not limited to electronic mail) inform your department chair, dean, director, manager or immediate supervisor;
   4. Inform a Human Resources Business Partner or the Office of Human Resources; or
   5. Notify an attorney in the Office of Counsel.

Reports will be promptly evaluated and, as applicable, investigated, and appropriate corrective action will be taken. Retaliation against individuals who report concerns in good faith is strictly prohibited.

VI. Policy Review and Compliance

This policy will be reviewed regularly to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and best practices. Any updates or changes will be communicated to all staff and faculty.

By fostering a culture of respect and equal opportunity, the Ģ����ý reaffirms its commitment to a fair and inclusive workplace for all.

The post Non-Discrimination in Employment Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.

A. To provide an orderly, coordinated, and informed practice of naming physical entities (buildings, facilities, and grounds, or portions thereof) owned by the University; naming non-physical entities (schools, departments, units, institutes, and university-wide centers); and creating named endowed and non-endowed funds.

B. To provide parameters, guidance, and clarity on the requirements for establishing, budgeting, and installing named endowed positions.

C. To provide the University’s distinguished alumni, benefactors, corporations, foundations, and friends with appropriate recognition for their generous support and to ensure namings are consistent with the University’s values, principles, and mission.

II. Definitions

A. Physical Entity – a discrete and identifiable entity that exists in the physical world.  Examples include a building, lobby or statue.

B. Non-Physical Entity – something that exists outside of physical reality, meaning it has no tangible form. Examples include a department, program, or academic chair.

C. Philanthropic Naming – funds to support what is being named that is provided by an individual, family, foundation or corporation’s significant charitable gift.

D. Honorific Gift – what is being named is in honor or memory of a person as a symbolic gesture of recognition but is not supported by a charitable gift. Funds to support the named item would be operating costs for the University.

III. Scope

A. The Institutional Naming Policy (“Naming Policy”) applies to UR community members (including but not limited to faculty, staff, students, alumni, volunteers, students and donors). The Naming Policy is administered by University Advancement and governed by Advancement, the Office of the President, and the Board of Trustees.

IV. Principles

A. Naming physical and non-physical entities creates important representations or emblems of the University’s values, culture, and history. University entities shall bear only the names of those who exemplify the highest values of the URochester. When a naming opportunity arises, strong preference shall be given to persons who have distinguished, close, and valued association with the URochester.

B. Named positions at the University are meant to recruit and retain world-class talent, conveying prestige and recognition for the outstanding work being done by the individual holding the named position rather than creating a financial benefit to the holder. The holder of the named position may receive some form of incremental financial benefit for their work, such as additional research funds, at the discretion of the dean or director of the relevant area or the President or Provost of the University, consistent with the terms of any related gift and other applicable University policies.

V. Entities for Naming

A. Physical Entities

1. Buildings and other major facilities, discrete components of buildings (wings, lecture halls, auditoriums, foyers, classrooms, laboratories, studios, offices, conference rooms, etc.), athletic facilities, and residence halls.
2. Campus grounds, outdoor renovations, gardens, trees, fountains, benches, walkways, parking facilities, and other real property.
3. Libraries, parts of libraries, and other collections of significant size and continuing educational, scientific, historic, artistic, or cultural value.

B. Non-Physical Entities

1. Colleges, schools, departments, institutes, centers, programs (these do not have specific physical buildings, but they do have operating budgets and faculty and staff specific to the entity).

C. Endowed and Non-Endowed Funds

1. Faculty and staff endowed positions, including but not limited to deanships, directorships, and professorships.
2. Faculty support such as pilot projects, research endowments, internal and external partnerships, and community outreach.
3. Student support such as scholarships and fellowships.
4. Lectures, seminars, awards, and prizes.

VI. Types of Naming

A. Philanthropic

1. Philanthropic naming recognizes those who have made substantial financial contributions through donations to the University in accordance with applicable University policy on gift naming levels.
2. To determine whether naming is appropriate philanthropic recognition, the following factors may be considered:
   1. The net present value of any and all of the donor’s gifts to the University, particularly the gift that motivates the naming;
   2. The appropriateness of associating the donor’s name with the University;
   3. The donor’s other contributions to the University, including volunteer activities, awards, and assistance with other projects; and
   4. The principles described in Section IV of this policy.
3.  In no case will a philanthropic naming be affixed before the execution of a legally enforceable gift agreement.
4. A donor may ask the University to name an entity for an individual other than the donor, or the donor’s family, provided that the proposed individual exhibits the principles described in Section IV of this policy and the individual is not otherwise disqualified from naming.
5. No entity may be named for an actively employed faculty or staff member responsible for the budget of the entity being named or awarding of the named fund (per University Advancement’s Gift Management Guidelines).

B. Honorific

1. Honorific naming (including non-philanthropic memorial naming) recognizes individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to the University, the nation, or the world and whose lives and principles deserve to be remembered and emulated. However, the naming is not related to a philanthropic gift. Customarily, the individual or the individual’s contribution(s) should relate to the entity being named.
2. To maintain the importance of philanthropic naming, the honorific naming of any entity shall remain a rare method of recognizing individuals. Other prestigious University honors should be considered before an honorific naming is proposed.
3. Any honorific naming tied to or supported by an institutional fund—such as a fund functioning as an endowment (FFAE) rather than philanthropic contributions (gifts)—will be considered on an ad-hoc basis but is, in general, discouraged. In the rare occurrence such naming is approved, the FFAE Process Guidelines set forth by Endowment Accounting and Advancement should be followed.
4. Unless otherwise initiated by the President or the University’s Board of Trustees, honorific naming is not permitted for an active University member, including staff, faculty, students, or trustees.

VII. University Naming Committee

A. The University Naming Committee (“Naming Committee”) must review and approve any philanthropic naming proposals for physical and non-physical entities (but not endowed and non-endowed funds) at the $1 million level or greater. If no further approval is required by this policy, that approval is final. Otherwise, that approval allows the proposal to continue to the next level of review. The Naming Committee also advises and makes recommendations to the President of the University regarding all honorific naming proposals, regardless of any gift made or value, for physical and non-physical entities.

B. The purpose of the Committee is to ensure that there is appropriate shared input and high-level administrative oversight for this process to ensure consistency. Administrative communications with the Committee should be via the Executive Director of Donor Engagement.

C.  The University Naming Committee is appointed by the President and is composed of the following members:

1. Vice President for University Advancement
2. Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, CFO and Treasurer (EVP)
3. Other members at the discretion of the President

VIII. Gift Parameters and Criteria for Philanthropic Naming

A. Pricing

When a gift is given to name a new building or major project, the amount of the gift should represent a significant percentage of the cost of the project. The standard for naming a substantial physical entity (such as a building) generally requires a minimum gift commitment of 30% to 50% of the total project cost or 50% or more of the total project fundraising goal. The SVP for Advancement will recommend the percentage for each naming opportunity to those who are needed for the overall approval.

1. Naming parameters for non-physical entities—including schools, institutes, departments, and other major programs—require funding that covers a significant proportion of the annual operating budget for the entity.
2. The Senior Vice President for Advancement will establish and periodically update recommended specific gift levels (endowment minimums) for naming opportunities based on peer or aspirant-peer benchmarking and historical pricing for similar entities at the University. This will be done in consultation with the appropriate dean, director, or other administration official, the University Naming Committee, and the Board of Trustees Advancement Committee. If approved by the President, the gift levels and endowment minimums will be submitted to the Board of Trustees or its Executive Committee for final approval.
3. Note that the required minimum gift level for a naming opportunity refers to the contributed value, not the market value, of the fund.
4. To achieve and sustain a donor’s intent, the University may require higher or lower gift levels for certain naming opportunities depending on the area, uniqueness of purpose, analysis of existing and future support, and other factors. If a named position does not fit the descriptions outlined in the Policy, pricing will be dictated by reviewing the position’s responsibilities, authority, and visibility, as well as benchmarking against the closest approved position description.

B. Format

1. Every philanthropic naming gift must include a formal gift agreement prepared by the Office of Donor Engagement.
2. The gift agreement should include a clause that any portion of the pledge not paid during the donor’s lifetime will be fulfilled by the donor’s estate. It must also refer to this Institutional Naming Policy.
3. Gifts should typically be in the form of outright gifts and/or documented outright pledges that typically do not exceed a five-year payment schedule.
4. Bequests and other deferred gifts, in contrast to outright gifts, for naming physical entities will be considered on a case-by-case basis, but generally do not qualify for a naming opportunity until the deferred gift has been realized. Any exceptions to this must be reviewed by the Office of Donor Engagement and Office of Gift and Donor Services, which recommends approval to the Senior Vice President for University Advancement. If the gift is valued at $1 million or more, the deferral and naming must be approved by the University Naming Committee and President before the decision is final.
5. Deferred gifts can be used to name non-physical entities, endowed funds, or non-endowed funds if the deferred gift is guaranteed as provided in this policy and one of the following two criteria is met:
   1. Donors ages 75 years and older make a bequest commitment that is at least the required minimum at the time the bequest is documented.
   2. Donors ages 60 to 74 document a bequest commitment to fund a naming opportunity that is at least one and a half (1 ½) times the required minimum at the time the bequest is documented. This is to account for inflation, rising costs, and uncertainty pertaining to the timing of the intended gift.
6. Use of institutional funds to establish or augment a naming (the latter is sometimes called a “matching” FFAE) will be subject to the standard FFAE Process Guidelines and the same policies as philanthropic naming.
   1.  Any commitment of funds from a department or division to establish or augment a naming are subject to the standard FFAE Policy and Process Guidelines.
   2. In the event institutional funds are used to establish or augment a naming, the resulting FFAE will be subject to the same exception procedures, requirements, and policies as philanthropic namings.
7. Commitment of institutional operating funds to support strategic initiatives (such as University Professorships) will be considered on an ad-hoc basis.

IX. Due Diligence and Leadership Approval

A. For all philanthropic namings, the Office of Donor Engagement will consult the Gift Management Guidelines and complete the Restricted Party Screening process to ensure that a donor’s gift may be received as intended and to determine whether there is an unacceptable risk in accepting the gift. For all namings of $1 million or greater, University Advancement will conduct additional due diligence.

B. The naming of a physical or non-physical entity has high-profile visibility. Therefore, before a donor is presented with a naming opportunity, the appropriate leadership must be consulted and approve the proposed naming, as detailed below.

C. Endowed and Non-Endowed Funds; Physical and Non-Physical Entities Less Than $1 Million.

Any philanthropic naming for an endowed or non-endowed fund (including but not limited to faculty and staff endowed positions, scholarships, fellowships, lectures, seminars, awards, and prizes) or for a physical or non-physical entity with an associated price that is less than $1 Million shall follow the standard gift agreement process and will be subject to the standard internal review process as outlined by the Office of Donor Engagement (see Gift Management Guidelines). If the standard internal reviewers deem such a naming significant, they may escalate the review to the University Naming Committee. Reasons to do so may include:

1. Donor requests physical recognition for a non-physical entity; this would be an exception, as ordinarily only capital gifts are considered for physical recognition.
2. The fund/position name will be widely publicized in University publications or other University-owned communication channels.
3. The gift entails unique features or attributes that are significantly out of the ordinary or require exceptions to standard policy.

D. Physical Entities of $500,000 or Greater

Any philanthropic naming of a physical (capital) entity requires the approval of the Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, CFO and Treasurer (EVP), before the opportunity is presented to the donor.  In addition, the EVP will be added to the standard gift agreement and internal review process for capital gifts of $500,000 or greater as outlined in Section IX of this Policy and the Gift Management Guidelines.

E. Honorific Namings; Physical and Non-Physical Entities of $1,000,000 or Greater

1. All honorific naming regardless of dollar value and any philanthropic naming of a physical or non-physical entity with an associated price of $1,000,000 or more shall be submitted in writing to the University Naming Committee via the Executive Director of Donor Engagement, who will provide the required proposal template and content checklist to be used for the submission.
2. The following factors shall be considered by the Naming Committee:
   1. Whether the individual has promoted the purpose and mission of the Ģ����ý;
   2. Whether the reputation of the individual may reflect negatively or adversely upon the Ģ����ý;
   3. Whether the individual is in compliance with all agreements with the Ģ����ý;
   4. Whether any existing agreement prohibits changing or adding a name to the entity;
   5. Whether the naming represents a potential conflict of interest or appearance of commercial influence, or could compromise the institution’s academic or research autonomy; and
   6. Whether the physical space in which a non-physical entity (such as a center or institute) resides causes conflicting recognition—for example, if naming a virtual center within an already named physical building causes a recognition conflict.
3. Upon the recommendation of the Naming Committee:
   1. All honorific namings are presented to the President for her/his approval, which is final.
   2. Philanthropic namings are forwarded to the President for her/his consideration. The President approves, denies, or asks for revisions to the recommendation, which is final if the gift is for less than $10 Million.
   3. For philanthropic namings that are $10 Million or greater, if the President approves, the recommendation will be presented to the Board of Trustees, its Executive Committee, or Board of Trustees Advancement Committee for final approval.

X. Special Considerations for Named Positions

A. Gift Agreement

1. It is recommended that the gift agreement include flexibility for the University to use the funds for general faculty support prior to meeting the endowment minimum. Relevant situations include:
   1. Those in which the donors are actively paying a multi-year pledge to reach the endowment minimum. For example, “The University may, if it deems prudent to do so, allow awarding from the Fund for general division or department support once the Fund reaches the minimum required for a general support fund. If this action is chosen, the budget will revert to the original purpose of supporting the named position once the endowment minimum has been reached.
   2. Those in which full funding of the named position may not occur and there has been no gift action or re-negotiation of the terms of the gift within three years after the final scheduled payment date.
2. It is recommended that the gift agreement allow the Board of Trustees to appoint “one or more” named positions if the endowment is fully funded and the market value reaches a sufficient level to support an additional named position, producing an annual budget that is equal to or greater than twice the budget that would be distributed from a new, fully funded named position.
3. The gift agreement must specify (by position title) who will appoint the holder of the named position and at whose discretion the fund’s budget will be spent.

B. Establishment of Named Positions with Endowed or Non-Endowed Funds

1. New named positions must reach one of two requirements to qualify for formal establishment and, if applicable, subsequent installation:
   1. The contributed value of the fund meets or exceeds the policy minimum;
   2. The contributed value of the fund meets or exceeds one half (½) of the policy minimum and there is an irrevocable life income gift or an irrevocable estate provision in place for the remaining balance that does not exceed 20 years.
      1. “Life Income Gift” refers to gift vehicles such as charitable gift annuities, charitable remainder unitrusts, and other such life income gifts in which the University is guaranteed to benefit from the realization of proceeds upon maturity.
      2. Bequest intentions are by nature conditional and therefore do not qualify as irrevocable commitments/gifts.
2. If funds are to be accumulated through a broad solicitation, no establishment or installation can occur until either of the aforementioned funding scenarios has been achieved.
3. Exceptions will be considered on an ad-hoc basis as long as the named position is at least half-funded, even if the named position endowed fund is currently being used for general faculty, division, or department support. The process for requesting an exception should follow Section XII.
4. Once the approved funding scenario has been achieved (the minimum contributed value has been received), Donor Engagement shall present a draft resolution, cover memo, and any necessary explanatory documentation to senior leadership for approval prior to seeking Board of Trustees approval. Senior leadership shall include:
   1. Dean or director of the benefiting area
   2. Senior Vice President for University Advancement
   3. General Counsel
   4. Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, CFO and Treasurer (EVP) (only if an exception in budgeting is requested)
   5. Provost
5. Once senior leadership has approved, the draft resolution shall be sent to the Office of the Board of Trustees to include in the next Board of Trustees meeting to formally establish the named position.
6. Only after the Board of Trustees has formally approved the establishment of the named position, the benefiting division may formally install an individual to the named position subject to the applicable appointment process.

C. Appointing a Named Position

1. The benefiting division should follow its internal procedures to make the appointment, including submitting a personnel action to the Provost’s Office for approval by the Board of Trustees and confirming a process for removal of the appointment in appropriate circumstances. The effective date of that personnel action is the date on which the appointee can begin to use the position name. This applies in all cases, including positions supported by institutional operating funds (for example, University Professorships).
2. At the discretion of the relevant dean or director, an appointment may be made after the minimum funding level is achieved, but before the endowment begins to produce a budget. For example, the appointee might already be a member of the division’s faculty or staff, so the division is already supporting the position. In the case of recruiting for a new position, it might be advisable to wait for the endowment to produce a budget.

D. Installing a Named Position

1. Installation ceremonies are held for the inaugural holder of a named endowed faculty position. These ceremonies recognize and steward the donor, set an example for other donors who might be interested in funding a named position, and honor the appointee.
2. For Named Endowed Faculty
   1. After the Board approves the establishment of named position through a resolution and approves the personnel action, the school and Advancement school or unit director will work with Donor Engagement, Special Events, and Presidential Advancement to schedule the installation. Installations will be scheduled based on the availability of the University President or Provost, the dean of the school, the appointee, and the donor.
   2. The format of the event will be determined by Special Events in consultation with the Advancement unit director. The cost of the event will be covered by the school or unit.
3. Other Installations
   1. At this time there is no standard format for either subsequent installations of named endowed faculty or for inaugural installations of other named positions (University Professorships, staff positions, etc.). Each school or unit handles this directly.
   2. The Senior Director of Donor Impact Reporting should be notified of any vacancies that arise and all installations so that they can maintain accurate records for each position.
4. Donor Recognition in Lieu of Installation
   1. In cases where the position will not be formally created or installed for some time—such as deferred commitments or long-term pledges—University Advancement working with the appointing school or department may opt to recognize the donor’s generosity through a celebration event or other appropriate stewardship prior to the appointment of an inaugural holder.
5. Early Installations
   1. Requests for early installations (for example, before a budgeted minimum is met) may be made on a case-by-case basis. Prior to negotiations with the donor, the relevant dean, Senior Vice President for Advancement, University Provost, Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, CFO and Treasurer (EVP), and University President must approve the request.

E. Budget Availability for Named Positions

1. New named positions must reach the required minimum funding level (in contributed value) before the endowment will be subject to budgeting in support of a named position.
2. If early installation is granted, the endowment can be budgeted if the contributed value is at least half of the required endowment minimum.
3. The annual budget from the fund is spent at the discretion of the dean or director of the relevant area and is not necessarily dedicated to the use of the faculty or staff member holding the named position.

XI. Duration, Modification, and Removal

A. Duration of Naming

1. The naming of physical entities is intended to be in place for the useful life of the specific physical space, until significant renovation occurs as determined by senior leadership, or for an agreed upon fixed term. If there is no provision for modification or removal, the University retains the right to remove the naming at the end of the useful life of the physical entity.
2. The naming of non-physical entities is intended to be in place for the life of the entity or for an agreed upon fixed term.

B. Relocation or Renovation

1. For philanthropic naming, if circumstances change so that the purpose for which the physical or non-physical entity was established is significantly altered or is no longer needed, the University will make appropriate efforts to provide suitable donor recognition subject to policy.
   1. If the physical or non-physical entity, at the time of the original gift, was valued at $1 Million or greater, the President, in consultation with the Senior Vice President for University Advancement—and the donor(s), if possible—will determine an appropriate way to recognize the donor’s original intentions.
   2. If the entity, at the time of the original gift, was valued at less than $1 Million, the Senior Vice President for University Advancement—and the donor(s), if possible—will determine an appropriate form of recognition. If the University and the donor(s) outlined practicable recognition in a signed gift agreement or contract, that action shall be followed.
   3. In all instances, the leader of the division impacted by the gift will also be consulted in determining the alternative recognition form.

C. Changes to or Removal of Names

1. Donor- or honoree-requested changes to a naming will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the decision will be made following the initial approval process outlined in Section VII. The University is not obligated to change the name, but in its sole discretion may change the name at the donor’s request and expense, whether the donor is an individual, business entity, foundation, or other organization.
2. In the case of philanthropic naming, the University may remove a name upon the failure of a financial commitment to be satisfied, and if partially fulfilled, will seek appropriate alternative recognition.
3. The University reserves the right to remove a name from an entity under extraordinary circumstances when, in its sole discretion, the University determines the continued use of the donor’s or honoree’s name would compromise the public trust and reflect adversely upon the University and its reputation. In the absence of an express delegation by the President to a special committee appointed and charged by the President, the same process for naming an entity in the first instance shall be implemented for changing or removing the name, and the University Naming Committee shall retain the authority for administration of this process.
4. The removal of an honoree’s/donor’s name from an entity must not be undertaken lightly, and it must be approached with an awareness of the fallibility of our own judgments. The decision-making process must include, at a minimum, the following:
   1. A description of specific behavior(s) or course(s) of conduct on the part of the honoree on which the request for the removal of the honoree’s name is based;
   2. A fact-finding investigation of the specific behavior(s) or course(s) of conduct; and
   3. Thoughtful consideration of the impact on the University and the University community of both retention and the removal of the donor’s/honoree’s name from the entity.
   4. The University may also consult with immediate relatives and heirs of the donor/honoree, as well as individuals involved in the initial naming decision, before making a recommendation. To the extent practicable, the University will communicate with the donor/honoree, or the donor’s/honoree’s representative, at the earliest convenience about any anticipated changes to the named entity.
5. The removal or change in the name due to extraordinary circumstances (as defined) may be initiated only by the President, the Provost, a dean, a vice president, or a trustee.
6. Upon the removal of a name under this section, the entity will revert to the immediately previous name. If there is no previous permanent name, an administrative name will be adopted. The process for an initial naming will be used if the entity is subsequently renamed.

XII. Exceptions

A. The exception process expressly set out in the policy should be followed when applicable. Otherwise, exceptions to this policy are strongly discouraged. If an exception not provided for in the policy is deemed critical, it must be presented to the Senior Vice President for University Advancement, the leadership of the relevant school or unit, and (in the case of named academic positions) the Provost. If these reviewers determine the request should be considered, the request for an exception will be supplemented with advice from University Counsel and will be adopted if approved by:

1. Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, CFO and Treasurer (EVP)
2. University President; and
3. Board of Trustees. The Board’s decision on whether to grant the exception will be final.

The post Institutional Naming Policy appeared first on Policies & Procedures.