400.00 Rights and Responsibilities
Warning: This is not the current faculty handbook. See here for the current faculty handbook.
- Table of Contents
- 411.00 Board of Regents Policy
- 412.00 News Releases and Statements
- 413.00 Campus Speakers
420.00Ethical and Professional Standards
- 421.00 Consensual Relationships
430.00Policy on Research Misconduct
- 431.00 Reporting Allegation
- 432.00 Inquiry
- 433.00 The Investigation
- 434.00 Confidentiality and Protection of Reputations
- 435.00 Appointment of Impartial Inquirer or Investigator
- 436.00 Notice to Respondent
- 437.00 Maintenance and Custody of Research Records
- 438.00 Interim Protective Actions
- 439.00 Notification and Coordination with ORI
440.00Conflict of Interest
- 441.00 Policy on Preventing Conflicts of Interest in Professional Activities
- 442.00 Conflict of Interest in Sponsored Activities
- 443.00 Determining When a Conflict of Interest Exists
- 444.00 (Reserved)
- 445.00 Consensual Relationships
- 446.00 Nepotism
450.00Rights Relative to Appointment/Reappointment
- 451.00 Right to Receive Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards and Procedures Documents
- 452.00 Right to Receive Role Statement and Obligation to Perform Assignments
- 453.00 Personnel Records/Personnel Files
460.00Rights Relative to Annual Review
- 461.00 Right to Timely Review
- 462.00 Right to Appeal Annual Performance Evaluation
- 463.00 Right to Appeal Remediation Plan
470.00Rights and Responsibilities Relative to Formal Review for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion
- 471.00 Responsibility to Prepare and Submit Dossier
- 472.00 Right to Grieve/Time Limits
480.00Faculty Responsibilities: "Workload Policy"
- 480.10 Goals of Workload Policy
- 480.20 Faculty Responsibilities
- 480.30 Responsibility for Distribution of Workload
- 480.40 Faculty Accountability
"Assignments" means the specific duties each faculty member is expected to perform during the contract term.
"Candidate" means any tenurable faculty member who is being reviewed under the policies and procedures of this Handbook.
"Conflict of Interest" means a convergence between an individual's private interests and professional obligations. [This definition replaces the current definition in 402.00.]
"Conflict Management Plan" means the actions and strategies the employee and the University will undertake to manage, reduce, and/or eliminate any potential or actual conflict of interest in professional activities [441.00] or sponsored activities [442.00].
"Consensual Romantic Relationship" means an amorous relationship between unrelated adults to which both parties have consented.
"Employee" means a regularly employed faculty or staff member, part-time or academic support faculty or staff member, a student employed by any unit of the University, and any other persons, including students, using facilities who are not covered by contract or agreement.
"Equity Interests" means stocks, stock options or other ownership interests.
"Financial Interest" means anything of monetary value, including, but not limited to, salary or other payments for services; equity interests; and intellectual property rights. For the purposes of this policy, financial interests includes the interests of the employee and his or her spouse and children.
"Inquiry" means information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine if the allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation.
"Intellectual Property Rights" means patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights.
"Investigative Hearing" means a formal presentation, examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine whether misconduct has occurred, the severity of the alleged misconduct and its impact, and the recommendations for specific actions to be taken to address the misconduct.
"Investigator" means the principal investigator, co-principal investigator, and any other person who is responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of a sponsored activity. For purposes of the requirements of this section pertaining to disclosure of financial interests and sponsored activities, the term "investigator" includes the investigator's spouse and dependent children.
"Payment for Services" means salary, additional compensation, consulting fees or honoraria.
"Potential Conflict of Interest" means that a reasonable likelihood exists that an individual's private interests will converge with his or her professional obligations.
"Relative" means a parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or cousin, by blood relationship; spouse; or brother, sister, parent, or child of spouse; or spouse of one's brother, sister, parent or child. [Section 2-2-302, and Section 2-2-303, M.C.A.]
"Research" means a systemic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge including, but not limited to, scientific, applied, behavioral and social-sciences research and/or any such activity for which funding is available from federal agencies.
"Research misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification is 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.
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words withinout giving appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
"Role Statement" means the document which identifies the broad responsibilities each faculty member performs in furtherance of the mission of the department and guides the faculty member in meeting standards of effectiveness and excellence.
"Significant Financial Interest" means a financial interest that is derived from (a) an equity interest that has a value greater than the limits set by the Intellectual Property Policy Committee or (b) salary, royalties or other payments that when aggregated are reasonably expected to exceed the limits set by the Intellectual Property Policy Committee. The term does not include: (1) salary, royalties, or other remuneration from Montana State University-Bozeman; (2) income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by public or nonprofit entities; or (3)income from service on advisory committees or review panels, for public or nonprofit entities.
"Sponsored Activities" means research, creative and educational activities that are funded by grants, contracts or other agreements administered by the University.
"Threshold" means the aggregate dollar amount or percentage of ownership established by the Intellectual Property Committee as constituting a significant financial interest.
Revised, July 1, 1999; July 2007
[MUS Policy 302, March 11, 1963, Issued November 18, 1981; Issued April 8, 2004]
1. THE PORTION OF THE l940 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE
OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS SET OUT BELOW IS ENDORSED BY
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
"(A) THE TEACHER IS ENTITLED TO FULL FREEDOM IN RESEARCH AND IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE RESULTS, SUBJECT TO THE ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OTHER ACADEMIC DUTIES; BUT RESEARCH FOR PECUNIARY RETURN SHOULD BE BASED UPON AN UNDERSTANDING WITH THE AUTHORITIES OF THE INSTITUTION.
"(B) THE TEACHER IS ENTITLED TO FREEDOM IN THE CLASSROOM IN DISCUSSING HIS SUBJECT, BUT HE SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO INTRODUCE INTO HIS TEACHING CONTROVERSIAL MATTER WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO HIS SUBJECT. LIMITATIONS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS OR OTHER AIMS OF THE INSTITUTION SHOULD BE CLEARLY STATED IN WRITING AT THE TIME OF THE APPOINTMENT.
"(C) THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY TEACHER IS A CITIZEN, A MEMBER OF A LEARNED PROFESSION,
AND AN OFFICER OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. WHEN HE SPEAKS OR WRITES AS A CITIZEN,
HE SHOULD BE FREE FROM INSTITUTIONAL CENSORSHIP OR DISCIPLINE, BUT HIS SPECIAL POSITION
IN THE COMMUNITY IMPOSES SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS. AS A MAN OF LEARNING AND AN EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, HE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THE PUBLIC MAY JUDGE HIS PROFESSION AND HIS INSTITUTION
BY HIS UTTERANCES. HENCE HE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES BE ACCURATE, SHOULD EXERCISE APPROPRIATE
RESTRAINT, SHOULD SHOW RESPECT FOR THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS, AND SHOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT
TO INDICATE THAT HE IS NOT AN INSTITUTIONAL SPOKESMAN."
THE REGENTS PLACE PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON PARAGRAPHS (B) AND (C) OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT RELATING TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES AS WELL AS THE PRIVILEGES WHICH MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSION AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS IMPORTANT CONCEPT OF AMERICAN LIFE.
MINUTES, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, EX OFFICIO REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MARCH 11, 1963.
Updated, July 1, 2000.
Any staff member expressing personal opinions to the media shall make it clear that such are personal views and not necessarily those of Montana State University-Bozeman. Any statements representing the official position of the University must come from the President's office or be authorized in writing by that office.
A university is a forum for the free exchange of ideas. There should be no restriction on the topics which may be presented by campus speakers other than those imposed by law (e.g., libelous, obscene or inflammatory statements). Montana State University-Bozeman will exercise supervision only over the time, place, and manner of such presentations.
The faculty and administration of Montana State University-Bozeman are responsible for assuring the highest ethical and professional standards and behavior in:
A. working with undergraduate and graduate students, including the elimination of
racial, ethnic and sexual prejudice and harassment from the classroom and entire University
B. working with faculty and staff,
C. performing their contracted responsibilities, including the employment and use of graduate assistants or adjunct faculty and staff,
D. working with public and private agencies, organizations and businesses,
G. conducting research and creative activity (see 430.00 for "research misconduct")
H. adhering to standards for biosafety, research utilizing human and animal subjects,
and the use of radioactive materials (see Research Policies),
I. respecting confidentiality and privacy in the use of information systems (see Computing Policies (see 510.00 and 520.00),
J. respecting copyright and patent requirements (see 910.00 and 920.00,
K. participating in University planning and governance (see Long Range Plan), and
L. reporting alleged breaches of ethical standards to appropriate bodies (see 434.01).
- Revised G. - July 1, 2007.
420.01 Investigations of Complaints of Violations of Ethical and Professional Standards
Complaints of alleged breaches of these standards shall be investigated using the procedures set forth in 430.00, Misconduct in Research, as general guidelines. The procedures may be adapted as necessary to consider a specific complaint.
Revised July 1, 2007.
Since a consenting romantic or sexual relationship, especially one between a teacher and a student or a supervisor and an employee, may be unethical and unprofessional, faculty, administrators, supervisors, and others in positions of authority shall take care always to maintain the highest ethical and professional standards in their interactions with students and employees.
A consensual relationship in which one party is in a position to review the work of the other or influence the other person's opportunities is a conflict of interest and may provide grounds for a formal complaint and/or appropriate disciplinary action.
When a consensual relationship results in a conflict of interest, the faculty or staff member shall immediately disclose the conflict of interest to his or her supervisor. The supervisor and the employee shall take steps to ensure that the conflict of interest is eliminated.
Effective July 1, 1996 until June 30, 1997
It is the policy of Montana State University-Bozeman to require the highest ethical standards in the research 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 shall be considered a breach of contract between the employee and the University.
This policy applies to any research activity undertaken by faculty or 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 addition to the research itself, this policy applies to:
(a) Applications or proposals for extramural or intramural funding of research, research
training or activities related to research, or training, such as the dissemination
of research information;
(b) Plagiarism of records produced in the course of research or activities related to that research or training.
This policy addresses only research misconduct as defined herein. Other misconduct such as reckless disregard for accuracy, failure to supervise, and other serious deficiencies—but not within the definition of research misconduct—may constitute breaches of Section 420, Ethical and Professional Standards and shall be addressed by the cognizant dean, provost, or vice president as provided in that Section.
For purposes of this research misconduct policy, the definitions found in 45 CFR Pads 50 and 93 shall apply in addition to the definitions in Section 402 hereof. To the extent the definitions are restricted to U.S. Public Health Service research, the university hereby adopts the definitions to apply to all research misconduct regardless of funding source. “ORI” as used herein means the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity.
An allegation of misconduct in research, defined as a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication, should be made to the appropriate department head or dean who shall report the allegation to the Vice President for Research, Creativity & Technology Transfer (‘VPR”). Promptly after receiving a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication, the VPR shall assess the allegation to determine if an inquiry (i.e., an initial review of the evidence to determine if the criteria for conducting an investigation have been met) will be conducted. An inquiry is warranted if:
(1) it meets the definition of research misconduct;
(2) it involves either the research, applications for research support, or research records; and,
(3) the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
432.01 Appointing the Inquirer
The VPR shall appoint an inquirer who shall complete the inquiry within 60 calendar days of its initiation, unless circumstances warrant a longer period. The inquirer shall conduct the review, prepare the inquiry report, solicit comments on the report from the respondent, consider the respondent’s comments, and issue the final inquiry report within the 60 day period. If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days to complete, the inquirer shall include documentation of the reasons for the delay in the inquiry record.
The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe misconduct occurred and whether a formal investigation is recommended.
Upon appointment, the inquirer will receive a briefing from the VPR and the University Legal Counsel on the relevant misconduct guidelines, federal regulations, and the legal parameters of the inquiry.
432.02 The Inquiry Report
The inquiry report shall contain the following information: (1) The name and position of the respondent(s); (2) A description of the allegations of research misconduct; (3) The federal or sponsor support involved, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing support; (4) The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation; and (5) Any comments on the report by the respondent or the complainant.
432.03 The Inquiry Determination
The VPR will make a written determination of whether an investigation is warranted. In making his or her determination, the VPR may take into account the information provided by the Inquirer and any oral or written statements made by the person accused of misconduct. The VPR may choose not to proceed with an Investigation if there is no reason to believe the misconduct occurred or if the person accused of misconduct admits the misconduct occurred and it is determined that an investigation will not likely uncover further information necessary to reach a final conclusion regarding the allegation.
VPR 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 investigation is to be conducted, the notification shall include a clear statement of the allegations to be investigated by the investigators.
If a decision not to investigate is rendered, the complainant may appeal to the President who will render the final decision of the University.
The VPR will notify granting agencies supporting the research/creative activity under investigation as may be required by the granting agency, state or federal law or regulations.
433.01 Appointment of Investigators
If the inquiry results in a determination that an investigation is warranted, the VPR shall appoint investigators to conduct the investigation. The investigator may be either:
(1) a group of institutions, professional organizations, or mixed groups which
will conduct research misconduct proceedings for other institutions, or
(2) other person that the VPR reasonably determines to be qualified by practice or experience to conduct research misconduct proceedings.
433.02 Investigation Timelines
The appointed Investigator(s) shall begin the investigation within 30 calendar days
of the VPR’s written determination. On or before the date on which the investigation
begins, the VPR will send the inquiry report and the written determination to the
Office of Research Integrity [ORI], or other federal agency, if required under federal
The Investigator(s) shall use best efforts to complete the investigation within 120 calendar days of the date on which it began, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment, and sending the final report to CR1, if applicable.
If it becomes apparent that MSU cannot complete the investigation within that period, the VPR shall promptly request an extension in writing from Office of Research Integrity, if applicable. This time period does not apply to separate personnel actions which may be undertaken as a result of the investigation.
433.03 Conduct of the Investigation
In conducting all investigations, MSU shall:
(1) Use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all reasonably available research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations;
(2) Interview 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 and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of investigation;
(3) Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation by the investigator(s), including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion; and
(4) Otherwise comply with the requirements for conducting an investigation in the federal regulations that may apply based upon the funding source for the research.
433.04 Requirements for Findings of Research Misconduct A finding of research misconduct under this policy requires that:
(1) There is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
(2) The misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
(3) The allegation of misconduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
433.05 Investigation Report
The Investigator(s) shall prepare the draft and final institutional investigation reports in writing and provide the draft report for comment by respondent in a manner consistent with applicable federal regulations. The final investigation report shall:
(1) Describe the nature of the allegations of research misconduct;
(2) Describe and document the federal, state or private financial support, including, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing federal, state or sponsor support;
(3) Describe the specific allegations of research misconduct considered in the investigation;
(4) Include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted;
(5) Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody, but not reviewed. The report should also describe any relevant records and evidence not taken into custody and explain why.
(6) Provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur
for each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation,
and if misconduct was found,
(i) identify it as falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism and whether it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard,
(ii) summarize the facts and the analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent and any evidence that rebuts the respondent’s explanations,
(iii) identify the specific federal, state or other grant support for the research;
(iv) identify any publications that need correction or retraction;
(v) identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct, and
(vi) list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent(s) has pending with federal, state or private agencies; and
(7) Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report.
Upon receipt of the report, the VPR shall determine whether the institution accepts the findings in the report. If any finding is not accepted, the finding and the reasons why it is not accepted shall be identified and included in a written report by the VPR.
MSU shall maintain and provide to ORl upon request all relevant research records and records of our research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of such interviews.
To the extent allowed by law, MSU shall maintain the identity of respondents and complainants securely and confidentially and shall not disclose any identifying information, except to: (1) those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding; and (2) the Office of Research Integrity, if applicable, as it conducts its review of the research misconduct proceeding and any subsequent proceedings.
To the extent allowed by law, any information obtained during the research misconduct proceeding that might identify the subjects of research shall be maintained securely and confidentially and shall not be disclosed, except to those who need to know in order to carry out the research misconduct proceeding.
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.
(1) Respondents. MSU shall undertake all reasonable, practical, and appropriate efforts to protect and restore the reputation of any person alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no finding of research misconduct was made, if that person or his/her legal counsel or other authorized representative requests that MSU do so.
(2) Complainants, Witnesses, and Committee Members. MSLJ shall undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to protect and restore the position and reputation of any good faith complainant, witness, or committee member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against those complainants, witnesses and committee members.
MSU shall take all reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased research misconduct proceeding to the maximum extent practicable. MSU shall select those conducting the inquiry or investigation on the basis of scientiflc expertise that is pertinent to the matter and, prior to selection, the VPR or designee shall screen them for any unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent, complainant, potential witnesses, or others involved in the matter. Any such conflict which a reasonable person would consider to demonstrate potential bias shall disqualify the individual from selection.
A respondent may request disqualification of an inquirer or investigator upon filing of a timely and sufficient affidavit of personal bias, lack of independence, or other basis for disqualification. The affidavit must state the facts and the reasons for the belief that the inquirer or investigator should be disqualified and must be filed not less than 5 days from the date the respondent receives notice of appointment of the inquirer or investigator. The VPR shall determine the matter and submit a written decision on the request for disqualification.
During the research misconduct proceeding, MSU will provide the following notifications to all identified respondents:
(1) Initiation of Inquiry. Prior to or at the beginning of the inquiry, the VPR shall provide the respondent(s) with written notification of the inquiry and contemporaneously sequester all research records and other evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, they shall be promptly notified in writing.
(2) Comment on Inquiry Report. The inquirer shall provide the respondent(s) an opportunity to comment on the inquiry report in a timely fashion so that any comments can be attached to the report.
(3) Results of the Inquiry. The inquirer shall notify the respondent(s) of the results of the inquiry and attach to the notification copies of the inquiry report and these institutional policies and procedures for the handling of research misconduct allegations.
(4) Initiation of Investigation. Within a reasonable time after the VPR’s determination that an investigation is warranted, but not later than 30 calendar days after that determination, the VPR or designee shall notify the respondent(s) in writing of the allegations to be investigated. The V or designee shall give respondent(s) written notice of any new allegations within a reasonable time after determining to pursue allegations not addressed in the inquiry or in the initial notice of the investigation.
(5) Scheduling of Interview. The Investigator(s) will notify the respondent sufficiently in advance of the scheduling of his/her interview in the investigation so that the respondent may prepare for the interview and arrange for the attendance of legal counsel, if the respondent wishes.
(6) Comment on Draft Investigation Report. The Investigator(s) shall give the respondent(s) a copy of the draft investigation report, and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based and notify the respondent(s) that any comments must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which he/she received the draft report. The Investigator(s) shall ensure that these comments are included and considered in the final investigation report.
(7) Appeal. Respondent shall be advised of his/her right to appeal the findings of the investigative report. The respondent may appeal the findings of the Investigative Report to the VPR by filing a written appeal with the VPR within 10 days of receipt of the report. The grounds for appeal would be that the report is not supported by the evidence, the policies were misapplied to the evidence or that new evidence that was not available to the Investigator should be considered in reaching a final decision. The respondent shall be given timely notification of the appeal process. Any appeal process must be completed within 120 days unless the institution has requested and received an extension from ORI. This 120 day deadline does not apply to institutional termination hearings that are conducted separately from the appeal process.
MSU shall take the following specific steps to obtain, secure, and maintain the research records and evidence pertinent to the research misconduct proceeding:
(1) Either before or when the VPR notifies the respondent of the allegation, MSU shall promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory those materials, and sequester them in a secure manner, except in those cases where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
(2) Where appropriate, give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records.
(3) Undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional research records and evidence discovered during the course of the research misconduct proceeding, including at the inquiry and investigation stages, or if new allegations arise, subject to the exception for scientific instruments in (1) above.
(4) MSU shall maintain all records of the research misconduct proceeding, as defined in 42 CFR Section 93.317(a) (insert hyperlink), for 7 years after completion of the proceeding, or any ORI or HHS proceeding under Subparts 0 and E of 42 CFR Part 93 (copies attached), whichever is later, unless MSU transferred custody of the records and evidence to HHS, or ORI has advised us that MSU no longer needs to retain the records.
At any time during a research misconduct proceeding, MSU shall take appropriate interim actions to protect public health, federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the supported research process.
The necessary actions will vary according to the circumstances of each case, but examples of actions that may be necessary include delaying the publication of research results, providing for closer supervision of one or more researchers, requiring approvals for actions relating to the research that did not previously require approval, auditing pertinent records, or taking steps to contact other institutions that may be affected by an allegation of research misconduct.
439.01 Notifying ORI of the Decision to Open an Investigation and of Institutional Findings and Actions Following the Investigation
If the research misconduct allegations involve PHS research, the VPR or designee shall provide ORl with the written finding by the Vice President and a copy of the inquiry report containing the information required by42 CFR Section 93.309(a) http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1256259b1812156feb6ce256e222e042&rgn=div8&view=text&node=42:184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11&idno=42ction 93.309(a).
Upon a request from ORI, MSU shall promptly send: (1) a copy of institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted; (2) the research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and (3) the charges for the investigation to consider.
The VPR or designee shall promptly provide to ORI after the investigation: (1) A copy of the investigation report, all attachments, and any appeals; (2) A statement of whether the institution found research misconduct and, if so, who committed it; (3) A statement of whether the institution accepts the findings in the investigation report; and (4) A description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
At any time during a research misconduct proceeding, MSU shall notify ORI immediately if there is reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
(1) Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
(2) HHS resources or interests are threatened.
(3) Research activities should be suspended.
(4) There is a reasonable indication of violations of civil or criminal law.
(5) Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
(6) MSU believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely, so that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
(7) MSU believes the research community or public should be informed.
MSU will cooperate with and assist CR1 and HHS, as needed, to carry out any administrative actions HAS may impose as a result of a final finding of research misconduct by HAS.
MSU shall cooperate fully and on a continuing basis with ORI during its oversight reviews of this institution and its research misconduct proceedings and during the process under which the respondent may contest CR1 findings of research misconduct and proposed HAS administrative actions. This includes providing, as necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence, all witnesses, research records, and other evidence under our control or custody, or in the possession of, or accessible to, all persons that are subject to our authority
When required by regulation, the VPR will report to OR! any proposed settlements, admissions of research misconduct, or institutional findings of misconduct that arise at any stage of a misconduct proceeding, including the allegation and inquiry stages.
Revised July 1, 2007.
[The University's Policy on Conflict of Interest is found at
http://www.montana.edu/policy/conflict_of_interest/ and it applies to all MSU employees including faculty.]
A conflict of interest may exist when an employee's professional actions or decisions may be, are, or have been influenced by considerations of personal or financial gain. This policy covers conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest in professional activities [441.00], in sponsored activity [442.00], in consensual romantic relationships [445.00] and in family relationships (nepotism) [446.00].
Effective July 1, 1997.
Montana State University-Bozeman adopts the principles of the American Council on Education - American Association of University Professors (ACE-AAUP) statement on preventing conflicts of interest in government-sponsored research at universities. Copies of this statement are available upon request from the Office of the Vice President for Research, Creativity, and Technology Transfer (Vice President for Research). Where appropriate, this statement is considered as applying to research, consulting, and professional practice involving non-government sponsors.
In addition, all public employees of the State of Montana are governed by the State Ethics Statutes Title 2, Chapter 2, M.C.A.
No employee of Montana State University-Bozeman may undertake consulting or professional assignments which would result in a conflict of interest with assigned University duties.
Effective July 1, 1997.
A. Any employee of Montana State University-Bozeman who contemplates accepting a research, consulting, or professional assignment which is not under the control of the University shall make a statement declaring that such outside research and consulting will not materially interfere with his or her regularly assigned duties.
This declaration must be filed with the employee's immediate supervisor who will forward
it to the appropriate dean or vice president. The dean shall transmit a copy to the
Vice President for Research.
B. Any employee of Montana State University-Bozeman who recommends or approves a purchase and has any financial interest in a firm involved in a purchase of goods or services shall make this fact known in writing before the purchase authorization is processed. This disclosure requirement does not include textbook adoptions when the employee is clearly identified as an author, contributor, or editor of the textbook under consideration.
Faculty members should not profit as a result of recommending a specific vendor for the purchase of texts or course materials by their students, whether on-line or from other sources. If this situation cannot be avoided the faculty member shall disclose the reason for the recommendation and the extent of their financial involvement so that a conflict management plan can be developed.
- C. Any employee of Montana State University-Bozeman who recommends or approves a personnel action and who has any financial interest or business association with the person who is the object of the action shall make this fact known in writing before the personnel action is initiated.
- D. Any investigator engaged in sponsored activities shall comply with this policy and any other conflict of interest requirements imposed as conditions of a grant or contract.
Effective July 1, 1997; Revised July 1, 2000.
441.02 Responsibilities of the Intellectual Property Committee in Determining "Significant Financial Interest"
The Intellectual Property Committee (IPC) is responsible for setting and publicizing aggregate dollar and ownership interest thresholds which establish when an employee's financial interests become significant financial interests. An investigator's financial interests may not exceed the threshold unless a Conflict Management Plan is or has been developed, as per Section 443.02.
The thresholds set by the committee shall be no more than the limits specified by state and federal agencies or other entities with which the University has contractual obligations.
The Committee shall publicize the dollar and ownership percentage thresholds it has established, on MSUinfoand through the Office of the Vice President for Research.
Effective July 1, 1997.
In sponsored activities, a conflict of interest occurs when the University determines, through the processes outlined in Section 443.00, that an investigator's financial interests could affect, or have directly and significantly affected, the design, conduct, or reporting of a sponsored project.
Effective July 1, 1997.
Disclosure of an investigator's significant financial interest is required when:
- A. the sponsored activities or educational activity may affect, or appear to affect,
the investigator's financial interests, or
- B. the investigator's financial interest may affect or appear to affect the sponsored activity.
Before submitting a proposal for funding, an investigator shall make any real or potential conflict of interest known to the University by submitting a "Disclosure Statement http://www.montana.edu/wwwvr/vpr%20staff%20%20pages/conflict%20policy%207%2020%2006.html" to the Office of Grants and Contracts with the Proposal Clearance Form. A separate Disclosure Statement is required for each activity that may create an actual or apparent conflict of interest.
For as long as the sponsored activity is in effect, the investigator shall update the Disclosure Statement annually or as new matters that require disclosure arise.
Effective July 1, 1997.
The Vice President for Research shall review each Disclosure Statement to ascertain if a real or potential conflict of interest exists.
If the Vice President determines that a conflict of interest exists, the Vice President may determine if the conflict of interest is waivable or not. If it is not waivable, the Vice President shall determine if any restrictions should be imposed on the employee in order to manage, reduce or eliminate the conflict of interest. These conditions and restrictions should be described in a Conflict Management Plan.
Effective July 1, 1997.
The Vice President for Research may waive the disclosed conflict and authorize the
investigator to proceed with the sponsored activity without a Conflict Management
Plan (443.02), if he or she concludes in writing that:
A. The conflict of interest is so remote that there is no probability for bias in the overall conduct of the sponsored activity, or
B. Any resolution of the conflicts other than by disclosure and waiver would be ineffective or inequitable, or
C. Any bias reasonably expected is outweighed by the interests of scientific progress, technology transfer or the public health and welfare.
Effective July 1, 1997.
If the Vice President for Research determines that a conflict of interest exists and is not waivable, the Vice President will develop a conflict management plan to manage, reduce or eliminate the conflict of interest. The plan will be developed in consultation with the investigator and his or her dean or other equivalent administrator.
The plan shall be in writing and will describe the conflict of interest and the methods to be used to guard against bias, self-dealing, inappropriate use of University resources, and/or other real or perceived impropriety.
The conflict management plan may employ strategies, including but not limited to,
A. Disclosing the investigator's financial interests to the public through statements to the academic and professional communities in presentations and publications and/or to the sponsor through written notification;
B. Employing an independent reviewer who has no interest in the sponsored activities to monitor the investigator's research or educational activities. The monitor may either be a University employee or an appropriate outside referee;
C. Modifying the research plan with the approval of the sponsor and investigator;
D. Disqualifying the investigator from participation in all or the portion of the research or educational activities that would be affected by the financial interests;
E. Divesting the investigator of her or his significant financial interests;
F. Severing the relationships that create the conflict of interest; or
G. Employing any other strategy that satisfactorily addresses the conflict and is approved by the Vice President for Research and the Intellectual Property Committee.
Effective July 1, 1997.
The Vice President for Research is responsible for University compliance with Sections 442.00 and 443.00 of this policy and all conflict of interest requirements of federal and state agencies
and private funders. The Vice President will:
A. Ensure compliance by subgrantees, contractors or collaborators, if required by the sponsor.
B. Submit required certifications of compliance for the University that may required by the sponsors of research, including the federal sponsors.
C. Report the existence of any conflict of interest and the steps taken to manage the conflict, if required by federal regulations.
D. Notify the sponsor if the University concludes it is unable to satisfactorily manage a conflict of interest.
E. Maintain records of all Disclosure Statements and of all actions taken to resolve conflicts.
F. Notify the sponsor if non-compliance with this policy has biased the design, conduct, or reporting of the sponsor-funded research and identify the corrective action taken or to be taken to address the matter, if required by federal regulation.
Effective July 1, 1997. Disclosure Form may be found at http://www.montana.edu/wwwvr/vpr%20staff%20%20pages/conflict%20policy%207%2020%2006.html.
An investigator's failure to comply with this policy may result in:
A. A charge of breach of the Ethical and Professional Standards or Misconduct in Research and Creative Activity brought under Sections 420.00 and 430.00, and/or
B. With the approval of the Vice President for Research, suspension of grants and contracts activity pending the completion of the investigation.
Effective July 1, 1997.
An investigator who disagrees with a decision made as a result of this policy has the following rights of appeal in addition to those defined in Section 430.00:
- A. If the disagreement is with the Vice President's determination that a conflict
of interest exists, the investigator may appeal to the Intellectual Property Committee.
- B. If the disagreement is with the Conflict Management Plan, the investigator may appeal to the President. The President, who may consult with the Intellectual Property Committee, shall render the final decision of the University.
Effective July 1, 1997.
A consensual romantic relationship in which one party is in a position to evaluate the work of the other is a potential conflict of interest. When such a potential conflict of interest results between employees or an employee and a student, the employee (s) shall disclose the potential conflict of interest to his or her supervisor. The supervisor and the employee shall take steps to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.
The employee's failure to disclose such a potential conflict of interest may require appropriate resolution.
Effective July 1, 1997.
(See MSU-Bozeman Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, Section (430.00).
Effective July 1, 1997.
Each faculty member will be reviewed using criteria, standards, and procedures which have been developed and approved in accordance with the policies of this Handbook.
Faculty members have the right to be informed, in writing, of the criteria and standards upon which their review (s) will be based and the procedures that will be used in conducting that review. They should receive copies of any revisions to department and college documents as these occur.
University criteria, standards, policies, and procedures for faculty review are included in this Handbook and are available electronically from the University's home page, in the MSU Libraries, and in the department and college offices.
At the time of initial appointment, each faculty member shall receive from the department
A. a letter of hire stating the duties and responsibilities of the position and identifying the instructional or professional practice expectations of the position,
B. the role, scope, criteria, standards, and procedures document for the department,
C. a copy of the role, scope, criteria, standards, and procedures document of the college, and
D. a timeline indicating probable dates of future reviews.
Revised July 1, 2003.
A faculty member's role statement identifies the broad responsibilities he or she performs in furtherance of the mission of the department.
The University expects that a faculty member's role will evolve over time as the needs and goals of the department and the faculty member change. Role statements are based on the faculty member's letter of hire and may be revised with the written agreement of the department head, college dean, and Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, after negotiation with the faculty member. If the faculty member is dissatisfied with the change in role statement, he or she may initiate proceedings under the Conciliation procedures in 1320.00.
The faculty member receives specific assignments for each contract term and is expected to perform the duties and responsibilities of the assignment.
Personnel files are the confidential and public records which relate to a faculty member's personal and professional characteristics, record of experience, and evaluations of performance or potential. The University limits access to personnel files on a need-to-know basis; however, public information contained in personnel files may be released on request of other agencies or at the discretion of University officials. The individual may release, in writing, the file for other purposes.
In addition to any dossiers, excluding external and internal peer review letters,
developed through the faculty review process, the file may contain the following information:
A. Letters of hire, contracts, and faculty role statements.
B. Annual reviews, with performance ratings and any written appeals, and other evaluations by department heads and college deans.
C. Unsolicited laudatory letters. (Such letters may be included at the discretion of the department. Unsolicited complaints or criticisms which have not been investigated or made known to the individual concerned shall not be placed in the personnel file or considered in any personnel decision.)
D. Official letters of correction, concern or reprimand.
E. Any communications which the faculty member originates.
F.Letters of recommendation provided on a confidential basis. (Access to letters of recommendation and letters of peer review is limited to the President, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, deans, department heads, search and screening committee members, and appropriate promotion, tenure, conciliation and/or grievance committees.)
Personnel files are to be kept locked. The faculty member's personnel file shall be retained for three years from the date of termination.
Modified, July 1, 1998.
A faculty member who is not reviewed or does not receive a copy of the written annual review with performance rating by April 11 may bring the matter to the attention of the dean. The faculty member should inform the dean in writing, no later than April 15.
A faculty member who disagrees with a performance evaluation or rating may appeal by appending to the annual review document a rationale for his or her disagreement and forwarding it to the college dean. The rationale must be filed with the dean within ten (10) days of signing the rating card. The dean shall consider the appeal and assign a performance rating. The dean shall notify the faculty member, in writing, of the decision regarding the appeal within ten (10) days if receipt of the request.
The Salary Review Committee does not hear appeals or grievances from individual faculty regarding their salaries. A faculty member who disagrees with a salary recommendation may appeal by sending a letter with a rationale for his or her disagreement to the college dean. Disagreements must be filed with the dean within ten (10) days of learning of the department head's salary recommendation. The dean shall consider the disagreement and prepare the salary recommendation. The dean shall notify the faculty member, in writing, of the decision regarding the disagreement within ten (10) days. Faculty members who are not satisfied with the decision of the dean may seek conciliation. (See 1320.00.)
Modified, July 1, 1998.
A faculty member who disagrees with the remediation plan developed by his or her primary administrative reviewer may appeal by appending to the remediation plan a rationale for his or her disagreement and forwarding it to the administrator at the next higher level. The rationale must be filed within ten (10) days of receiving the remediation plan from the primary administrative reviewer. The administrator at the next higher level shall consider the appeal and notify the primary administrative reviewer and faculty member, in writing, of the decision regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of receipt of the request. The decision of the administrator at the next higher level shall be final.
In cases of retention, tenure, promotion, or special review, it is the responsibility of the candidate to collect, organize and submit all appropriate data and material at the beginning of the formal review process, in accordance with Section 812.00.
Candidates shall submit the "Cover Sheet--Candidate's Dossier" and Table of Contents available from the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Dossiers shall include those materials specified in the Cover Sheet and any other materials required by the department and college criteria and standards document. Pages of the dossier submitted by the candidate shall be consecutively numbered. Candidates may submit supporting documentation in accordance with Section 812.00.
Amended July 1, 1996; revised, July 1, 2000.
Each candidate shall submit a list of persons from whom the department committee or department head may solicit evaluations and letters of support. Candidates shall not themselves solicit letters of support.
Each candidate shall submit her or his dossier by the date established by the Provost, dean, and department head. Unless provided in accordance with Sections 471.03, 471.04, 471.05 and 812.00, materials submitted after this date shall not be considered.
The candidate who fails to submit the dossier by the established deadline forfeits his or her opportunity for review. In cases of retention, tenure or special review for retention, the faculty member who fails to submit a dossier shall be issued a terminal contract for the next contract term.
Revised, July 1, 1998; Corrected July 1, 1999.
The candidate may not add to, alter, modify, delete or remove documents from his or
her dossier once it has been submitted except by:
A. updating the status of materials in support of tenure unknown at the time the dossier was submitted,
B. responding to a review committee's or reviewing administrator's request for additional materials or notice that materials in addition to those required by the role, scope, criteria, standards and procedures document have been added to the dossier (See 812.03.), or
C. responding to a negative recommendation from the departmental review committee and/or the department head as set forth in Section 812.04.
New section added, July 1, 1998.
- A. A candidate who receives a negative recommendation from the primary review committee
and/or the primary administrative reviewer may submit a response to the negative recommendation.
The candidate shall follow the procedures outlined in 812.04.
- B. A candidate who receives a negative recommendation from the primary review committee
and/or the primary administrative reviewer may also respond to peer reviews. The candidate
shall follow the procedures outlined in 812.04.
- C. The candidate's response to a negative recommendation shall be submitted to the
next level of review and will be added to the dossier if received within the time
frames set forth above.
New section added, July 1, 1998; revised July, 1999.
Each review committee and reviewing administrator may request additional material or documentation from the candidate. The candidate shall provide the requested material, to the best of his or her ability, within five days of receiving the request. The candidate may submit a brief statement or explanation with the requested material. The candidate shall submit the requested material to the review committee or reviewing administrator making the request and send copies to all preceding review committees and reviewing administrators. The response shall be added to the dossier if it is received within the time frame set forth above. (See Section 812.03.)
New section added, July 1, 1998.
Each review committee and reviewing administrator may request additional materials not in the possession of the candidate. The committee chair or reviewing administrator shall notify the candidate of the request for additional materials in writing. The candidate may submit a brief statement or explanation about the requested material to the review committee or reviewing administrator making the request and send copies to preceding review committees and reviewing administrators. The response shall be added to the dossier if it is received within five days of the receipt of notice of the request. (See Section 812.03)
New section added, July 1, 1998; revised July, 1999.
After the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs has made and communicated the recommendation (s) regarding retention, tenure, and/or promotion, the faculty member has the right to pursue the formal grievance procedures outlined in 1330.00. If the Provost's recommendation is positive, a negative action in a prior review cannot be grieved. If the Provost's recommendation is negative, the candidate may cite a negative action in a prior review in the grievance. Grievances must be filed with the chair of the Grievance or Conciliation Committee no later than thirty (30) days from the date the faculty member is notified of the recommendation.
Montana State University-Bozeman's Faculty Workload Policy holds two goals foremost:
- To ensure that the teaching, research/creative activity, and service responsibilities of both the faculty and the University are met with commitment and excellence as they reflect the comprehensive land-grant mission of Montana State University-Bozeman.
- To provide opportunity for growth and professional contribution for all tenure-track faculty should expect fairness in opportunity for professional and career development and for promotion within the University.
To meet the University's responsibilities to the State and its citizens, faculty are expected to be engaged in teaching, research and creative work, and service or outreach, as defined below. Faculty are also expected to maintain a continuous program of professional development that includes attendance and participation at professional meetings and keeping current with the literature in their discipline.
Each faculty member's relative emphasis on teaching, research, and service is individually determined to serve the mission and responsibilities of their college and department and to best utilize the strengths and interests of that faculty member.
Our Faculty Workload Policy recognizes the central role of undergraduate education in the University's mission. It also recognizes that a number of our colleges and departments have graduate education as an indispensable part of their contribution to this mission. A department's increased emphasis upon graduate education and research and creative work will be justified by the scholarly and creative productivity of the faculty including externally-funded research, and the size and productivity of the department's graduate programs.
Assignment of faculty responsibilities is a shared function of the departments, colleges or academic units, and the central university administration. It is the responsibility of the dean of each college, in consultation with the provost and the college's department heads, to determine the appropriate division of workload expectation for each department or equivalent unit in the college. This expectation will also recognize the current MSU Teaching Load Policy regarding preferred and maximum course credit limit as part of the overall workload policy.
This departmental workload expectation will reflect the mission of the department, the level of activity in the degree programs it offers, and the role, scope, and promotion and tenure documents of the department and its college. The workload expectation will provide each faculty member fair opportunity for professional advancement. An important factor in determining an appropriate workload assignment is the workload assignment of faculty in comparable disciplines in peer institutions.
Assignments and expectations for our College of Nursing and Extension Service faculty are developed in the context of their unique role in providing education, applied research, and service throughout Montana, and acknowledge our historic partnership with the federal and local governments with the Extension Service or Experiment Stations.
Faculty accountability is measured during the annual review by the department head according to the standards and criteria of each department's role and scope statements. Faculty accountability contributes to the overall institutional accountability to its students, the citizens of the state and nation, and the agencies that support its mission.
1 State and national studies have established that on the average, faculty work between 52-58 hours per week (Montana Legislative Auditor's report, 1990; Digest of Education Statistics, 1998, Chapter 3, Table 227, Postsecondary Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Department of Education, Washington, D.C.)
New section added, July 1, 2002.
MSU desires to support the parental life choices of its faculty, ensure academic integrity,
and foster departmental autonomy by seeking to resolve issues pertaining to faculty
assignments, dates of tenure review, standards of performance, and leaves of absence
from campus, collegially and at the departmental level, whenever possible. Department
administrators are strongly encouraged to make good faith efforts to accommodate the
family related need of the faculty, within the parameters of existing leave policies
Parental leave arrangements and/or extension of the dates of tenure review shall be considered on a case by case basis and may involve a variety of management strategies. These should be negotiated with the department head and agreed to, in writing, by the faculty member(s), the department head, dean, and provost. If the matter is not settled at the department level, the faculty member may refer the matter to the college dean. If the matter is not settled there, the faculty member may refer the matter to the provost. If the matter is not settled at that level, the faculty member may seek conciliation or file a grievance under the policies described in Section 1300.00.
New section added July 1, 2007.
Table of Contents