Chapter UWS 4

UWS 4.19 UWS 4.19 Adequate due process.

UWS 4.19(1) (1) A fair hearing for a faculty member against whom dismissal or other discipline is sought shall include all of the following:

UWS 4.19(1)(a) (a) Service of written notice of a live hearing on the allegations in the formal Title IX complaint at least 10 days prior to the hearing.

UWS 4.19(1)(b) (b) A right to the names of witnesses and of access to documentary and other evidence upon the basis of which dismissal or other discipline is sought.

UWS 4.19(1)(c) (c) A right to be heard in the faculty member’s defense.

UWS 4.19(1)(d) (d) A right to an advisor, counsel, or other representatives, and to offer witnesses. The faculty member’s advisor or counsel may ask all witnesses relevant questions and follow-up questions, including those challenging credibility. Credibility determinations, however, may not be made based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness. If the faculty member does not have an advisor, the university shall provide the faculty member, without charge, an advisor of the university’s choice to conduct cross-examination on behalf of the faculty member. The advisor may be an attorney.

UWS 4.19(1)(e) (e) A right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The faculty member’s or complainant’s advisor shall conduct cross examination directly, orally, and in real time. The faculty member and the complainant may not personally conduct cross examination. If the faculty member, the complainant, or a witness does not submit to cross-examination at the hearing, the hearing committee or the hearing examiner may not rely on any statement of the faculty member, complainant, or witness in reaching its findings and recommendations. However, the hearing committee or hearing examiner may not draw a negative inference in reaching its findings and recommendations based solely on the absence of a faculty member, complainant, or witness from the hearing or refusal to answer cross-examination or other questions.

UWS 4.19(1)(f) (f) A verbatim record of all hearings, which might be a sound recording, made available at no cost for inspection and review.

UWS 4.19(1)(g) (g) Written findings of fact and recommendations based on the hearing record. The written findings of fact and recommendations shall include all of the following:

UWS 4.19(1)(g)1. 1. Identification of the allegations potentially constituting Title IX misconduct.

UWS 4.19(1)(g)2. 2. A description of the procedural steps taken from the receipt of the formal Title IX complaint through the hearing committee’s or hearing examiner’s completion of written findings and recommendations, including any notifications to the faculty member and the complainant, interviews with the faculty member, the complainant, and witnesses, site visits, methods used to gather evidence, and hearings held.

UWS 4.19(1)(g)3. 3. Conclusions regarding the application of the university’s conduct rules and policies to the facts; a statement of, and rationale for, the result as to each allegation, including a recommendations regarding responsibility, any disciplinary sanction recommended to be imposed, and whether remedies designed to restore or preserve equal access to the university’s educational program or activity will be provided to the complainant.

UWS 4.19(1)(g)4. 4. The university’s procedures and permissible bases for complainant and employee to appeal.

UWS 4.19(1)(h) (h) Admissibility of evidence is governed by s. 227.45 (1) to (4), Stats. Only relevant questions may be asked of the faculty member, the complainant, and any witnesses. The hearing committee or hearing examiner shall determine whether a question is relevant and explain the decision to exclude a question as not relevant. Questions and evidence about the complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are not relevant, unless such questions or evidence are offered to prove that someone other than the faculty member committed the conduct alleged by the complainant, or unless the questions or evidence concern specific incidents of the complainant’s prior sexual behavior with the faculty member and are offered to prove consent.

UWS 4.19(1)(i) (i) The hearing may be conducted with all participants physically present in the same location, or at the hearing committee’s or hearing examiner’s discretion, any or all participants may appear at the hearing virtually, with technology enabling the participants simultaneously to see and hear each other. Upon the faculty member’s request, the university shall provide for the hearing to occur with faculty member and complainant located in separate rooms with technology enabling the hearing committee or hearing examiner, the faculty member, and the complainant to simultaneously see and hear witnesses answering questions.

UWS 4.19(2) (2) The complainant shall have all the rights provided to the faculty member in sub. (1) (a) to (i).

UWS 4.19 History History: CR 20-059: cr. Register May 2021 No. 785, eff. 6-1-21; correction in (1) (a), (g) 2. made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 12., Stats., and correction in (1) (h) made under s. 35.17, Stats., Register May 2021 No. 785.

UWS 4.20 UWS 4.20 Procedural guarantees.

UWS 4.20(1) (1) Any hearing held shall comply with the requirements set forth in s. UWS 4.19. All of the following requirements shall also be observed:

UWS 4.20(1)(a) (a) The burden of proof of the existence of just cause to support dismissal, or of grounds to support other discipline, is on the university administration.

UWS 4.20(1)(am) (am) The standard of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence.

UWS 4.20(1)(b) (b) No faculty member who participated in the investigation of a formal Title IX complaint, or who is a material witness, shall be qualified to sit on the hearing committee addressing that complaint. No university employee or other person who participated in the investigation of a formal Title IX complaint, or who is a material witness, shall be qualified to serve as the hearing examiner addressing that complaint.

UWS 4.20(1)(c) (c) The hearing shall be closed unless the faculty member or the complainant requests an open hearing, in which case it shall be open.

UWS 4.20 Note Note: See subch. V of ch. 19, Stats., Open Meetings of Governmental Bodies.

UWS 4.20(1)(d) (d) The hearing committee may, on motion of the complainant or the faculty member, disqualify any one of its members for cause by a majority vote. If one or more of the hearing committee members disqualify themselves or are disqualified, the remaining members may select a number of other members of the faculty equal to the number who have been disqualified to serve, except that alternative methods of replacement may be specified in the rules and procedures adopted by the faculty establishing the standing committee under this rule.

UWS 4.20(1)(e) (e) The hearing committee or the hearing examiner may not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence and may admit evidence having reasonable probative value but shall exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious testimony, and shall give effect to recognized legal privileges unless the person holding the privilege has waived it. The hearing committee or the hearing examiner shall follow the evidentiary rules in s. UWS 4.19 (1) (h).

UWS 4.20(1)(f) (f) If the hearing committee requests, the chancellor shall provide legal counsel after consulting with the hearing committee concerning its wishes in this regard. The function of legal counsel shall be to advise the hearing committee, consult with them on legal matters, and such other responsibilities as shall be determined by the hearing committee within the provisions of the rules and procedures adopted by the faculty of the institution in establishing the standing faculty committee under this policy.

UWS 4.20(1)(g) (g) If the Title IX disciplinary process described in ss. UWS 4.11 to 4.24 against a faculty member not holding tenure is not concluded before the faculty member’s appointment would expire, the faculty member may elect that such process be carried to a final decision. Unless the faculty member so elects in writing, the process shall be discontinued at the expiration of the appointment.

UWS 4.20(1)(h) (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent the settlement of cases by mutual agreement between the university administration, the complainant, and the faculty member.

UWS 4.20(1)(i) (i) Delay or adjournment of the hearing for good cause may be granted. Good cause includes the need for any of the following:

UWS 4.20(1)(i)1. 1. To investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made.

UWS 4.20(1)(i)2. 2. To ensure the presence of the faculty member or the complainant, an advisor, or a witness.

UWS 4.20(1)(i)3. 3. To provide language assistance or accommodation of disabilities.

UWS 4.20(1)(i)4. 4. To accommodate concurrent law enforcement activity.

UWS 4.20 History History: CR 20-059: cr. Register May 2021 No. 785, eff. 6-1-21.

UWS 4.21 UWS 4.21 Hearing committee or hearing examiner findings and recommendations to the chancellor. The hearing committee or hearing examiner shall simultaneously send to the chancellor, to the complainant, and to the faculty member concerned, within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, or otherwise as soon as practicable, a verbatim record of the testimony and a copy of its factual findings and recommendations.

UWS 4.21 History History: CR 20-059: cr. Register May 2021 No. 785, eff. 6-1-21.

UWS 4.22 UWS 4.22 Chancellor’s decision.

UWS 4.22(1) (1) Within 20 days after receipt of the record and findings and recommendations from the hearing committee or the hearing examiner the chancellor shall review those materials and afford the faculty member and the complainant an opportunity to discuss them. The chancellor’s decision shall be based on the record created before the hearing committee or the hearing examiner. The chancellor shall prepare a written decision within 20 days after completing the meetings with the faculty member and the complainant, unless the chancellor’s proposed decision differs substantially from the recommendations of the hearing committee or hearing examiner. If the chancellor’s proposed decision differs substantially from those recommendations, the chancellor shall promptly consult the hearing committee or the hearing examiner and provide the committee or the hearing examiner with a reasonable opportunity for a written response prior to making a decision.

UWS 4.22(2) (2) The chancellor may adopt the hearing committee or hearing examiner’s findings and recommendations as the chancellor’s decision. The chancellor shall explain in the decision any substantial differences from those findings and recommendations.

UWS 4.22(3) (3) The chancellor’s decision shall be simultaneously sent to the faculty member concerned, the complainant, and to the hearing committee or the hearing examiner. The chancellor’s decision also shall be submitted through the president of the system to the board, accompanied by a copy of the hearing committee’s or hearing examiner’s findings and recommendations. The chancellor’s decision and the findings and recommendations shall be forwarded through the president of the system to the board for its review.

UWS 4.22 History History: CR 20-059: cr. Register May 2021 No. 785, eff. 6-1-21.

UWS 4.23 UWS 4.23 Appeal to board.

UWS 4.23(1) (1) The board shall provide the faculty member and the complainant an opportunity for filing exceptions to the chancellor’s decision, and for oral arguments, unless the faculty member and the complainant waive in writing the right to file exceptions and for oral arguments. The hearing of any oral arguments shall be closed unless the faculty member or the complainant requests an open hearing.

UWS 4.23 Note Note: See subch. V of ch. 19, Stats., Open Meetings of Governmental Bodies.

UWS 4.23(2) (2) The faculty member or complainant may file written exceptions to the chancellor’s decision, and the board shall conduct its review of the chancellor’s decision, on any of the following bases:

UWS 4.23(2)(a) (a) Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter.

UWS 4.23(2)(b) (b) New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the live hearing that could affect the outcome of the matter.

UWS 4.23(2)(c) (c) Conflict of interest or bias for or against the faculty member or complainant, or against complainants and respondents generally, by the Title IX coordinator, investigator, the chancellor, the hearing examiner, or the hearing committee members that affected the outcome.

UWS 4.23(3) (3) If the board decides to take action different from the decision of the chancellor, then before taking final action the board shall consult with the chancellor.

UWS 4.23(4) (4) The board shall make its decision based on the record created before the hearing committee or hearing examiner. Within 60 days of receipt of the chancellor’s decision, or otherwise as soon as practicable, the board shall simultaneously notify the faculty member and the complainant of the board’s final decision, which shall include the board’s rationale for its decision.

UWS 4.23(5) (5) A decision by the board ordering dismissal of a faculty member shall specify the effective date of the dismissal.

UWS 4.23 History History: CR 20-059: cr. Register May 2021 No. 785, eff. 6-1-21.

UWS 4.24 UWS 4.24 Suspension from duties. Pending the final decision on dismissal or other discipline, the faculty member may not normally be relieved of duties; but if, after consultation with appropriate faculty committees the chancellor finds that substantial harm to the university may result if the faculty member is continued in the faculty member’s position, the faculty member may be relieved immediately of the faculty member’s duties, but the faculty member’s pay shall continue until a final decision as to dismissal, unless the chancellor also makes the determinations set forth in s. UWS 7.06 in which case the suspension from duties may be without pay and the procedures set forth in s. UWS 7.06 shall apply.

UWS 4.24 History History: CR 20-059: cr. Register May 2021 No. 785, eff. 6-1-21.