Section 1100: Research, Sponsored Projects & Public Service
1140 Misconduct in Research and Creative Activity
(Please Note: This policy is interim only and has been approved by the Chancellor. A formal policy will be prepared and submitted to the campus for its input; Date: January 24, 2002)
Effective:

1. Policy

It is the policy of Montana State University-Northern to require the highest ethical standards in the research/creative activity of its faculty and staff; to inquire into and, if necessary, investigate and resolve promptly and fairly all instances of alleged or apparent misconduct; and, as appropriate, to comply in a timely manner with requirements for reporting cases of possible misconduct to sponsoring agencies when sponsored research funds are involved. Misconduct in research or creative activity shall be considered a breach of contract between the employee and the University. This policy applies to any research/creative activity undertaken by faculty or professional staff. Cases of research/academic misconduct involving students are subject to the disciplinary rules governing students, but may be reviewed, where appropriate, under this policy. In conducting any inquiry or investigation into allegations of misconduct, the University shall protect, to the maximum extent possible under the law, the privacy of individuals who, in good faith, report apparent misconduct.

2. Rights of Persons Accused of Misconduct
Any person accused of misconduct shall be afforded:

A. confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible under the law,
B. a prompt and thorough investigation, and
C. an opportunity to comment on allegations and findings of any inquiry and/or investigation.

Faculty and staff are expected to cooperate with those persons conducting the inquiry and/or investigation.

3. Responsibilities of the University
In cases of alleged misconduct, the University will:

A. take precautions against any real or apparent conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in the inquiry and investigative hearing,
B. take administrative action (s), as deemed appropriate, to protect federal funds and insure that the purposes of federal financial assistance are carried out,
C. undertake diligent efforts to restore the reputations of persons accused of misconduct when allegations are not confirmed by investigation and protect the positions and reputations of those persons who in good faith made allegations, and
D. impose appropriate sanctions on individuals when allegations of misconduct have been substantiated.

4. Inquiry Process

A. Reporting the Allegation
An allegation of misconduct in research/creative activity should be made to the appropriate department head or dean who shall report the allegation to the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor. The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall notify the person accused of misconduct, his or her dean or department head, and the President of Faculty Senate, in writing, that an inquiry will be conducted. The notification shall include a statement of the alleged misconduct reported.

B. Appointing Faculty Member to Conduct Inquiry
The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the President of Faculty Senate, shall appoint an impartial faculty member with expertise in the area of research/creative activity to conduct the inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe misconduct occurred, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, and whether a formal investigative hearing is recommended. Upon appointment, the Faculty Inquirer will receive a briefing from the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor and the Montana State University Legal Counsel on the relevant misconduct guidelines, federal regulations, and the legal parameters of the inquiry.

C. Conducting the Inquiry / Submitting Written Report
The Faculty Inquirer shall review documents, data, proposals, publications and correspondence relevant to the allegation and shall conduct interviews as necessary to determine whether there is reason to believe misconduct occurred. The Faculty Inquirer shall submit a written report to the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor summarizing the allegation, the documents reviewed, the relevant interviews, his or her findings and recommendations for a course of action. The person accused of misconduct will be given a copy of the report and allowed an opportunity to submit written comments, which will be appended to the report. The report, and any comments, shall be submitted to the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor and the President of Faculty Senate. The inquiry shall be completed within sixty (60) calendar days of its initiation, unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry is not completed within sixty (60) days, the Faculty Inquirer's report shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60) day period. The Inquirer's report will be maintained in the office of the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor for three (3) years.

5. Determining Whether or Not to Proceed with Investigative Hearing
The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall review the report and, after consultation with the President of Faculty Senate, determine whether to proceed with an investigative hearing. In making his or her determination, the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor may take into account the information provided by the Inquirer and any oral or written statements made by the person accused of misconduct. The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor may choose not to proceed with an investigative hearing if there is no reason to believe the misconduct occurred or if the person accused of misconduct admits the misconduct occurred and waives his or her right to an investigative hearing. The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall notify the person who reported the alleged misconduct and the person accused of misconduct of his or her determination and recommendations in writing. If an investigative hearing is to be conducted, the notification shall include a clear statement of the allegations to be investigated by the investigating committee. If a decision not to investigate is rendered, the complainant may appeal to the Chancellor who will render the final decision of the University. The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor will notify granting agencies supporting the research/creative activity under investigation as may be required by the granting agency.

A. Investigative Hearing
An investigative hearing will be conducted within sixty (60) days of the completion of the inquiry, unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period in which to conduct the hearing.

B. University Representative
The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor, or his or her designee, shall act as the University representative in all aspects of the Investigative Hearing. The University representative will be responsible for gathering documentation relevant to the allegations of misconduct, including research data and proposals, publications, correspondence and memoranda of phone calls.

C. Selection of the Hearing Committee

1. The Hearing Committee shall be composed of three (3) faculty members, at least one of whom has expertise in the subject area. The Chancellor will appoint a tenured faculty member as the non-voting Chair for the Hearing Committee.
2. The Chair of the Hearing Committee will select committee members from a list of names submitted by the University representative and the person accused of misconduct.
3. Initially, each party will submit three (3) names of recommended Committee members, at least two (2) of whom are recognized to have expertise in the area of alleged misconduct. When appropriate, the Chair may appoint experts from outside the University to serve on the Committee; however, the Committee should include at least one (1) faculty member.
4. Members who believe they may have a conflict of interest on a specific case shall be excused. Each party shall have the right to challenge any person appointed for cause. The Chair shall rule on all challenges for cause. If at any time there are fewer than three (3) persons available for selection to the Committee, the parties will submit an additional list of names as requested by the Chair.

D. Open Meeting
The Chair shall determine whether the hearing will be an open meeting under the Open Meeting Policy. Except for such announcements as may be required to comply with that policy, statements about the case should be limited so far as possible until the proceedings have been completed.

E. Prehearing Conference
The Chair will call a prehearing conference within twenty (20) days after his or her appointment and at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing to:

1. narrow and define the issue (s) to be considered at the hearing,
2. identify and list witnesses for the hearing,
3. identify and list documents including any depositions to be submitted at the hearing, and
4. provide for the exchange of documentary or other information.

F. Hearing Procedures
The hearing will be conducted under the following guidelines:

1. The Chair of the Committee shall conduct the hearing.
2. Each party shall have the opportunity to make opening statements.
3. The University representative shall present the University's case first.
   
4. The parties shall be given a full opportunity to present their cases, including testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence in their support.
5. The parties shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses.
6. Every reasonable effort will be made to elicit and consider the most reliable evidence. The strict rules of evidence need not be applied and the decision of the Chair on questions of admissibility of evidence shall be final.
7. The parties may make closing statements.
8. An audio recording shall be made of the proceedings. A party may request that a stenographic record be made of the hearing, providing the requesting party pays the cost thereof.
9. At the hearing, each party may have the assistance of an advisor, who may be a member of the faculty or an attorney. The advisor may provide advice and assistance, but may not conduct the examination or cross-examination of witnesses or make statements to or respond to questions from the Committee on behalf of or for the parties.
10. The Chair may grant adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence if a valid claim of surprise is made.

G. Committee Responsibilities
The Committee shall determine whether misconduct occurred and shall make recommendations regarding what sanctions should be applied to address the misconduct. The findings of fact and recommendations of the Committee shall be in writing and based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing. The report of the Committee shall be forwarded to the Chancellor and a copy shall be submitted to the person accused of misconduct.

6. Administrative Responsibilities
Upon receipt of the report of the Committee, the Chancellor will have twenty (20) days to render the final decision of the University. The Chancellor’s decision will be based solely upon the record of the Investigative Hearing. If the Chancellor finds misconduct has not occurred, she or he will dismiss the complaint and direct the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor to undertake actions to restore the reputations of the persons accused of misconduct. If the Chancellor finds that misconduct has occurred, she or he shall impose appropriate sanctions considering the nature and seriousness of the misconduct. The Chancellor’s decision may be appealed to the President of Montana State University, the Commissioner of Higher Education and to the Board of Regents, subject to their policies and procedures.

7. Record Keeping
The recording of the proceedings, all written or other physical evidence presented at the hearing, the report of the Committee and the Chancellor's decision will be retained by the Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor for a period of no less than three (3) years.

8. Research Funded Under the Public Health Service Act
The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall notify the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) of the Public Health Service (PHS) when, on the basis of the inquiry, she or he determines that an investigation is warranted. The notification shall include the name of the person accused of misconduct, the general nature of the allegations and the Public Health Service grant number(s) involved. The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall keep the OSI apprised of significant developments during the course of the investigation and notify the Director of OSI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if it is determined:

A. There is an immediate health hazard involved.
B. There is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment.
C. There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person (s) making the allegations or the individual (s) who is/are the subject of the allegations as well as his or her co-investigators and associates, if any.
D. It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly.
E. There is a reasonable indication of a possible criminal violation. If there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation, Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall inform OSI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

The Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall submit a final report to OSI upon completion of this investigation and will report to OSI any time an inquiry or investigation is terminated prior to completion. If an investigation of misconduct in research funded by PHS cannot be completed within 120 calendar days, Provost/Senior Vice Chancellor shall submit a written request for an extension to OSI. The request shall include an explanation for the delay, an interim report on the progress to date and an estimate of the date of completion of the investigation.

Return to Section 1100