3. Faculty Grievance Policy – General Process

1. Scope. This section C sets forth the procedures for most faculty grievances. Some types of issues, however, must be resolved through other procedures.  See Section B.2 above.

2. Informal resolution. Before filing a grievance, a faculty member must ordinarily seek to informally resolve a complaint. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to consult with a Faculty Ombuds. Faculty members may also consult with the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee or the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility.  A faculty member need not pursue informal resolution if the faculty member is grieving:
   1. discipline imposed or proposed under HOP 2-2320 (“Faculty Discipline Policy”), 3-3020 (“Nondiscrimination Policy”), 3-3031 (“Prohibition of Sexual Assault, Interpersonal Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Sex Discrimination”), or 7-1230 (“Misconduct in Science and Other Scholarly Activities”); or
   2. a matter related to the faculty member’s evaluation under HOP 2-2150 or 2-2151.

3. Bringing a formal grievance. A faculty member initiates a grievance by submitting a written petition to the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Office of General Faculty.
   1. Standardized form. Petitions should be made using the standardized form found at https://facultycouncil.utexas.edu/faculty-grievance-intake-form.
   2. Contents of petition. The petition must include:

• a short summary – not more than one page – of the petition;
• the facts relevant to the grievance, including the name of the administrator or administrators who took the adverse action;
• the right or rights the faculty member claims have been violated;
• the redress the grievance seeks;
• a summary of attempts to informally resolve the issue;
• arguments in support of the faculty member’s claim and redress sought; and
• supporting documentation.

3. Notice to administrator. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide a copy of the petition to the administrator or administrators who the grievant identifies as having taken the action that is the subject of the grievance.

4. Overview of the review process. The review of a grievance may consist of three stages. First, an initial-review committee will assess the petition and determine: whether the grievance is one that must be resolved through other procedures; whether additional attempts at informal resolution must be pursued; and whether the grievance (or a part of the grievance) warrants moving to the second stage. Second, an investigative committee will be convened to investigate the grievance. The investigation will include some or all of the following: reviewing a response from the administrator who took the action that is the subject of the petition, interviewing the grievant and administrator, interviewing or obtaining written statements from other witnesses, and reviewing relevant documentary and other evidence. The investigative committee will issue a report with its findings. Third, the decision of the investigative committee may be appealed to the President.

5. First stage: Assessment of grievance by initial-review committee. Within 10 working days of the filing of the written petition, an initial-review committee shall meet and assess the grievance.
   1. Committee membership.
      1. Composition. The initial-review committee comprises three members: the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee, one of the Faculty Ombuds (selected by the Office of General Faculty), and the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor.
      2. Selection; substitution of committee member. If the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee or a Faculty Ombuds is unable to serve on the committee, the Office of General Faculty shall select another member of the Faculty Grievance Committee or another Faculty Ombuds to serve. If the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor is unable to serve, the Office of General Faculty should select, in consultation with the dean of the Law School (or the dean’s designee if the dean recuses), a faculty member to serve.
      3. Notice; challenge to committee member. The Office of General Faculty will promptly provide to the grievant and administrator the names of the initial-review committee members. The grievant and administrator may, within 3 working days, request the recusal of a committee member because of a conflict of interest described in Section C.8 below. But the recusal decision rests solely with the challenged committee member.

2. Assessment of the grievance.

1. Basis. The initial-review committee shall base its assessment on the petition (including any supporting documentation submitted by the grievant) and any information that the Faculty Ombuds who sits on the committee is able to provide.
2. Appropriate process. The initial-review committee shall first decide whether the grievance (or a part of the grievance) concerns a matter that must be pursued through other processes.  See Section B.2 above. If a majority of the committee decides that the grievance must be pursued through another process, it shall notify the grievant, the Office of General Faculty, and the administrator, and the grievance will be terminated. If a majority of the committee decides that a part of the grievance must be pursued through another process, it shall notify the grievant, the Office of General Faculty, and the administrator, and the grievance will be terminated as to that part.
3. Additional informal resolution. If the initial-review committee decides that the grievance concerns a matter that may be pursued through this procedure, the committee shall then consider whether additional attempts at informal resolution are likely to result in a resolution of the matter. If a majority of the committee so decides, it shall notify the grievant, the Office of General Faculty, and the administrator that the grievant must try to resolve the matter informally before the committee will continue its assessment of the grievance.

4. Decision to move to investigative stage. If the initial-review committee decides that additional attempts at informal resolution are not likely to result in a resolution of the matter or that the grievant has satisfied the requirement to pursue additional attempts at informal resolution, the committee shall decide whether the grievance should move to the investigative stage. The committee shall consider whether – looking at the facts and the claims in the light most favorable to the grievant – the petition (or a part of the petition) fails either to state any valid ground for redress or to seek any redress that could be granted. If the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor: agree that the petition (or a part of the petition) fails to do so, the committee shall dismiss the grievance (or a part of the grievance). Otherwise, the grievance will move to the investigative stage. Such a dismissal is a final decision and concludes the grievance process.

6. Second stage: Consideration by the investigative committee.
   1. Committee membership. Within 5 working days of the notification that the grievance will move to the investigative stage, the Office of General Faculty shall appoint an investigative committee.
      1. Composition. The investigative committee comprises three members drawn randomly from the Faculty Grievance Committee by the Office of General Faculty. If a member of the committee becomes unable to serve, the Office of General Faculty should select by random drawing a substitute member.
      2. Notice; challenge to committee member. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide to the grievant and administrator the names of the investigative committee members. The grievant and administrator may, within 3 working days, request the recusal of a committee member because of a conflict of interest described in Section C.8 below. The chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee, in consultation with that the Faculty Grievance Committee Resources Advisor, shall determine whether a committee member is recused.
   2. Initial evaluation of grievance.
      1. Initial meeting with Faculty Grievance Committee chair. The chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and/or the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor should promptly meet with the investigative committee to explain the committee’s role, review the nature of the complaint set forth in the petition, and answer questions committee members may have about the process.
      2. Decision whether to proceed to full investigation. Within 5 working days after the deadline for the administrator to submit a written response and supporting documentation, the investigative committee shall decide whether to sustain or dismiss the grievance (or a part of the grievance) or to proceed to a full investigation. If a majority of the committee believes that additional information is needed to resolve the grievance (or a part of the grievance), it should proceed to a full investigation.
      3. Decision to proceed to full investigation – notice. If the investigative committee decides that the grievance should proceed to a full investigation, it shall promptly notify the grievant, administrator, provost, and Office of General Faculty of its decision. The notice shall include an invitation to the grievant and administrator each to submit in writing: (a) the names of individuals who have relevant information and who they would like to have the committee contact; and (b) a list of questions they would like the committee to pose to particular individuals. This information should be submitted to the Office of General Faculty within 5 working days of receipt of the committee’s decision. The notice shall also instruct the grievant and administrator as to how they may access the material already submitted and that will be submitted by the other side.
      4. Decision not to proceed to full investigation – report. If the investigative committee believes that additional information is not needed to resolve the grievance or a part of the grievance, it shall submit a written report to the grievant, administrator, provost, and Office of General Faculty. The report should set forth, with respect to any part of the grievance for which the committee believes additional information is not needed:

• the nature of the grievance or part of the grievance;
• the committee’s factual findings;
• the committee’s conclusion regarding whether to sustain or dismiss the grievance or part of the grievance;
• the basis for its conclusion; and
• any recommendations it deems appropriate to make regarding redress for the grievant.

3. Full investigation. The investigative committee should begin its full investigation as soon as practicable after the deadline has passed for the grievant and administrator to submit the names of individuals they would like the committee to contact and the list of questions they would like the committee to pose. The committee should endeavor to complete its work as quickly as is practicable.
   1. Obtaining information. The investigative committee should, when possible, interview the grievant and administrator. The committee may also seek to interview or submit written questions to anyone that the committee believes may have relevant information. Decisions about which individuals should be interviewed or questioned and what questions should be asked are left to the committee’s discretion. Both the grievant and the administrator may submit additional documentation to the committee, and the committee may ask the grievant, administrators, or other individuals to submit additional documentation. All such submissions should be made to the committee through the Office of General Faculty.
   2. Participation encouraged and protected. The grievant, administrator, and other members of the University community are encouraged to cooperate fully with the investigative committee’s requests. The committee may draw a negative inference from either the grievant’s or administrator’s lack of cooperation. In all other situations, it is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating or declining to participate in the grievance process.
   3. Counsel or advisor. The grievant and the administrator may be represented by counsel or by an advisor who is not an attorney. The counsel or advisor may attend their client’s interview, but their role is limited to consulting with the client. The counsel or advisor may not ask or object to questions during the interview. No one else may attend an interview other than those persons providing technical assistance to the investigative committee.
   4. Follow-up interviews or questions. The investigative committee may conduct follow-up interviews or submit follow-up written questions to anyone who it has already interviewed or who has already responded to written questions.
   5. Preserving and sharing the record. All interviews conducted by the investigative committee shall be audio recorded. The Office of General Faculty is responsible for preserving these recordings. It shall also preserve copies of all written questions posed to individuals by the committee and the responses to those questions as well as copies of all documentation that is submitted as part of the grievance. The grievant and administrator are entitled to access to these materials when the committee submits its preliminary report. In its discretion, the committee may provide earlier access to particular materials to the grievant or administrator.
   6. Burden of proof. The grievant bears the burden of proving his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence (that is, more likely than not).
   7. Decision and report. Upon completing its investigation, the investigative committee shall, by majority vote, reach a preliminary decision. It shall submit a written report to the grievant, administrator, provost, and Office of General Faculty. The report should set forth:

• the nature of the grievance;
• how and from whom the committee obtained the relevant information;
• its factual findings;
• its conclusion regarding whether to sustain or dismiss the grievance;
• the basis for its conclusion; and
• any recommendations it deems appropriate to make regarding redress for the grievant

7. Third Stage: Appeal to the president. Both the grievant and the administrator may appeal an investigative committee’s decision to sustain or dismiss a grievance. Within 5 working days after receiving the committee’s decision, the appealing grievant or administrator must submit an appeal to the Office of the President and the Office of General Faculty. The appeal must detail the reasons why the appellant believes the committee’s decision was erroneous and the relief the appellant seeks. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide a copy of the appeal to the opposing side and a copy of the committee’s final report (with the grievant’s and administrator’s attached comments) to the Office of the President. The president shall, within 10 working days of receiving the appeal, render a written decision, which may accept, reverse, or modify the committee’s decision. The president should submit the decision to the Office of General Faculty, which shall promptly provide copies to the grievant and administrator. The president’s decision is final and concludes the grievance process. If, however, the appeal concerns the committee’s decision not to proceed to a full investigation regarding only part of a grievance, the president has the discretion to postpone deciding the appeal until the investigative committee has submitted its final report regarding the balance of the grievance.

8. General Provisions.
   1. Time limits. A grievant or administrator may submit to the Office of General Faculty a request for an extension of a time deadline. The request must be filed before the time deadline has expired. It should be in writing and should briefly state the reason for the request. The Office of the General Faculty must promptly provide the relevant decision-maker with the request. The chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee shall decide whether to grant an extension of the time deadline for filing a grievance. The initial-review committee, the investigative committee, and the president shall decide whether to grant an extension for time deadlines that pertain to, respectively, the first, second, and third stages of this grievance process.
   2. Conflict of interest. A faculty member shall not serve as a member of either the initial-review or investigative committee if the faculty member (a) was involved in the events that gave rise to the grievance, (b) could reasonably be expected to be interviewed or questioned by the investigative committee, (c) has a pending grievance, complaint, or lawsuit against the University or one of its employees, or (d) otherwise cannot judge the merits of the grievance fairly and impartially. A committee member who decides that any of these conditions applies may step down from serving on the committee at any stage of the process.

5. Former Faculty Grievance Policy – Summary Dismissal Termination of Tenured Faculty Member or a Non-Tenured Faculty Member Before the Expiration of the Stated Period of Appointment.

1. Bringing a formal grievance and request for hearing. A faculty member initiates a grievance of Summary Dismissal by submitting a written petition to the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Office of General Faculty.
   1. Standardized form. Petitions should be made using the standardized form found at https://facultycouncil.utexas.edu/faculty-grievance-intake-form.
   2. Contents of petition. The petition must include:

• a short summary – not more than one page – of the petition;
• the facts relevant to the grievance, including the name of the administrator or administrators who took the adverse action;
• the right or rights the faculty member claims have been violated;
• the redress the grievance seeks;
• arguments in support of the faculty member’s claim and redress sought;
• supporting documentation; and
• a request for hearing.

3. Deadline. A faculty member must initiate the grievance and request for hearing within 7 days of the issuance of the written determination of Summary Dismissal.
4. Notice to administrator. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly provide a copy of the petition to the administrator or administrators who the grievant identifies as having taken the action that is the subject of the grievance.

2. Procedures governing hearing by hearing tribunal. When a faculty member is entitled to a hearing before a hearing tribunal under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 4, the provisions under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.1-5.7 govern the hearing, except that the burden is to prove Serious Misconduct as defined in HOP 2-2320, sec. VII(C). Additionally, those sections are supplemented by the following paragraphs 3 through 12.

3. Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of three persons selected randomly from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, the president and chair of the Faculty Council will jointly choose additional tribunal members. The president may request counsel from the System Administration’s Office of General Counsel to advise the hearing tribunal.

4. Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than eight working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice of the hearing tribunal’s membership to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the Office of General Faculty within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership. The recusal decision is to be made by the challenged tribunal member. If the challenged tribunal member grants the challenge, the president shall appoint a substitute member from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers.

5. Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within fifteen working days after the panel members are appointed. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least ten working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

6. Virtual hearing permitted. The hearing tribunal may, in its discretion, order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

7. Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

8. Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

9. Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
   1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. The administration and other members of the University community are encouraged to cooperate fully with the requests to participate in the hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating or declining to participate in any way.
   2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except for evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law.
   3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least three working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses to be called and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the hearing tribunal, in its discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced.

10. Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.1 – 5.6. The following rules also apply:
    1. Burden of proof. The administration bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, Serious Misconduct for Summary Dismissal termination.
    2. Order of presentation. The administration has the right to make the first opening argument, present its evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
    3. Admissibility of evidence. The hearing tribunal shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply.
    4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the proposed termination.
    5. Adjournments. The hearing tribunal may adjourn to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a claim of surprise is made.
    6. Length of hearing. The hearing tribunal may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case. Both sides shall be afforded the same amount of time.
    7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section
       30.06 shall be provided.
    8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties, hearing tribunal members, or Faculty Grievance Committee members shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

11. Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the hearing tribunal shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations. The recommendations may be to affirm, reverse, or reconsider the Summary Dismissal termination. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 5.6, the tribunal may also provide any supplementary suggestions it deems proper concerning the disposition of the case. The report shall also include any minority findings, recommendations, or supplementary suggestions. The hearing tribunal shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the Summary Dismissal termination and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits.

12. Final determination by the president. Review by the president of the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations is governed by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 4, and University of Texas System Policy 198, sec . 4.The president’s decision on the matter is final and unappealable.

6. Faculty Grievance Policy – Decision Not to Reappoint a Tenure-Track Faculty Member or Tenure-Track-Eligible Instructor

1. Governing procedures. Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6, as supplemented by the following provisions, governs the filing and resolution of a grievance brought by a full-time, tenure-track professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor who has received notice under:
   1. Regents’ Rule 31002, sec. 1, that the faculty member will not be reappointed and that the faculty member’s appointment will expire at the end of the academic year; or
   2. Regents’ Rule 31002, sec. 1, and Regents Rule 31007, sec. 5, that the faculty member will not be reappointed and that the next academic year will be the terminal year of the faculty member’s appointment.

2. Review by provost. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.1, a faculty member may present a grievance in person or through a representative to the provost challenging a non-reappointment decision and the provost shall meet with the faculty member.

3. Written request for hearing tribunal. Within 15 working days after a faculty member meets with the provost, the faculty member may request a review by a hearing tribunal by submitting a written request to the president. The request must describe in detail the facts the faculty member is relying on to prove that the decision was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The faculty member must also send a copy of the written request to the Office of General Faculty and the provost.

4. President consults with provost, Faculty Grievance Committee. Within 15 working days after the faculty member submits a written request for review by a hearing tribunal, the provost shall submit to the president an analysis of the faculty member’s allegations that the decision not to reappoint was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The president shall also ask the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor jointly to review the materials submitted by the faculty member and the provost and to provide their analysis regarding which claims, if any, should be subject to review by a hearing tribunal.

5. President’s decision. Within 15 working days after reviewing the analysis provided by the provost and the Faculty Grievance Committee chair and Faculty Grievance Committee Resource Advisor, the president shall decide whether the facts alleged by the faculty member, if proven with credible evidence, support a conclusion that the decision not to reappoint was made for unlawful reasons. If the president so decides, a hearing tribunal will be convened to hear the matter. If the president decides the decision was not made for unlawful reasons, the president’s decision is final. In either case, the president should give written notice of the decision to the faculty member and the Office of General Faculty.

6. Composition of hearing tribunal. The hearing tribunal shall be composed of three persons selected randomly from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers. Each member of the hearing tribunal must hold academic rank at least equal to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision. And the hearing tribunal may not include a faculty member who might be called as a witness in the hearing or whose fairness or objectivity may reasonably be questioned. If there is not a sufficient number of faculty members of at least equal rank able to serve on the hearing tribunal, the president and chair of the Faculty Council will jointly choose additional tribunal members.

7. Notice of tribunal membership; challenge. The Office of General Faculty shall promptly – and no fewer than eight working days before the hearing commences – provide written notice to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision of the hearing tribunal’s membership. In accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.5, the faculty member may seek to recuse a tribunal member by challenging the member’s fairness or objectivity. The faculty member must submit the challenge to the Office of General Faculty within 3 working days of receiving notice of the tribunal membership. The recusal decision is to be made by the challenged tribunal member. If the challenged tribunal member grants the challenge, the president shall appoint a substitute member from the standing pool of faculty hearing officers.

8. Timing for convening hearing. The hearing tribunal should make every effort to convene the hearing within 15 working days after the president notifies the faculty member of the decision that a hearing tribunal should be convened. The Office of General Faculty shall, at least ten working days before the hearing convenes, provide notice to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the Office of the President of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

9. Virtual hearing permitted. The hearing tribunal may, in its discretion, order that the hearing be held in person, by teleconferencing, or some combination of the two.

10. Hearing closed. The hearing shall be closed.

11. Right to representation. Both the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the administration have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. If the faculty member is not represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by up to two advisors; if represented by counsel, the faculty member may be accompanied by one other advisor.

12. Obtaining witnesses, documents, or other evidence.
    1. Participation encouraged; retaliation prohibited. The administration and other members of the University community are encouraged to cooperate fully with the requests to participate in the hearing. The hearing tribunal may draw a negative inference from the administration’s lack of cooperation. It is a violation of University policy to retaliate against an individual for participating or declining to participate in any way.
    2. Opportunity to obtain evidence within University’s control. The faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision shall be afforded an opportunity to obtain relevant evidence within the control of the University, except evidence that is confidential or exempted from disclosure by law.
    3. Providing notice of witnesses and documents. At least three working days before the hearing, the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and the administration must provide the other and the hearing tribunal a list of the witnesses to be called and copies of documents and other exhibits to be submitted in evidence. The Office of General Faculty, in consultation with the hearing tribunal, will provide instructions as to how this is to be accomplished. But notice need not be provided of impeaching or rebuttal witnesses whose identity cannot reasonably be determined beforehand. Even if a party fails to provide proper notice, the hearing tribunal, in its discretion, may permit a witness to testify or a document or other exhibit to be introduced.

13. Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 54.1 – 54.6, except where otherwise provided by Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.2. The following rules also apply:
    1. Burden of proof. Under Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.2(a), the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, that the non-reappointment decision was made for reasons that are unlawful under the Constitution or laws of Texas or the United States. The administration need not state the reasons for its non-reappointment decision or offer supporting evidence unless the faculty member presents credible evidence that, if unchallenged, proves the decision was made for unlawful reasons.
    2. Order of presentation. The faculty member has the right to make the first opening argument, present evidence first, and make the final closing argument.
    3. Admissibility of evidence. The hearing tribunal shall admit evidence that is relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time-consuming. The Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply.
    4. Recording and transcription of hearing. The proceedings shall be recorded and transcribed by a court reporter, and a copy of the verbatim transcript shall be supplied to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision.
    5. Adjournments. The hearing tribunal may adjourn to enable either party to investigate evidence for which a claim of surprise is made.
    6. Length of hearing. The hearing tribunal may impose reasonable limits on the amount of time each side has to present its case.
    7. Concealed carry of handguns prohibited. If the hearing is conducted in person, pursuant to HOP 8-1060 (“Campus Concealed Carry”), the concealed carry of handguns shall be prohibited in areas in which the hearing is being conducted. Notice conforming to Texas Penal Code section 30.06 shall be provided.
    8. Public statements. Except for routine announcements, such as those relating to the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements about the case by the parties, hearing tribunal members, or Faculty Grievance Committee members shall be avoided, as far as possible, until a final decision is reached.

14. Findings and recommendations. Within 10 working days of the completion of the hearing, the hearing tribunal shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31008, sec. 6.2(c). The report shall also include any minority findings and recommendations. The hearing tribunal shall deliver the original of the report to the president and a copy to the faculty member challenging the non-reappointment decision and to the Office of General Faculty. The Office of General Faculty shall provide the president with the original transcript of the hearing and the exhibits and the faculty member with a copy of the transcript and exhibits.

15. Review by the president. Based on the record of the hearing, the president may approve, reject, or amend the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations.
    1. Opportunity to present arguments. Upon receipt by the president of the hearing tribunal’s report and the hearing transcript and exhibits, the president shall give the parties ten working days to submit written arguments based on the hearing record.
    2. Time for decision. Once the deadline for submitting written arguments has passed, the president shall review the hearing record and the parties’ written arguments. The president should try to provide a written decision within ten working days. If the president needs additional time, the president should promptly notify the parties and the Office of General Faculty and inform them when a decision will be rendered.
    3. Finality of decision. The president’s decision to approve, reject, or amend the hearing tribunal’s findings and recommendations is final.

8. Forms & Tools

None