UWS 4.17UWS 4.17 Final investigative report. The investigator shall create a final investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence and send the report to the faculty member, the complainant, and their advisors, if any, for their review and response at least 10 days prior to a hearing. The written report shall be delivered simultaneously to the faculty member and complainant. The university shall, upon receipt of the final investigative report, proceed to schedule a live hearing on the matter. A hearing shall be conducted unless both the faculty member and the complainant waive, in writing, the right to such a hearing.

UWS 4.18(1)(1) The chancellor of each university, in consultation with faculty representatives, shall adopt policies providing for the designation of a Title IX conduct hearing examiner. The chancellor shall select a hearing examiner pursuant to these policies to hear faculty dismissal and discipline cases. Additionally, the faculty of each university shall provide a standing hearing committee charged with hearing faculty dismissal and discipline cases. The chancellor shall appoint the presiding member of the hearing committee, who may be a hearing examiner. The university shall decide whether a hearing examiner or a hearing committee will hear the matter.

UWS 4.18(2)(2) The hearing committee or the hearing examiner described in sub. (1) shall conduct the hearing, make a verbatim record of the hearing, and transmit such record along with factual findings and decision to the chancellor. The hearing shall be held not later than 45 days after completion of the final investigative report except that this time limit may be extended by the hearing committee or the hearing examiner.

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)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)(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 HistoryHistory: 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(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.