13.0 UNC SYSTEM POLICY AND INFORMATION DOCUMENTS

13.1 The Code of the UNC Board of Governors

Several sections of The Code are reproduced here in full. The complete Code, as revised by the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina on July 1, 2001, can be downloaded at http://www.northcarolina.edu/bog/code/code.cfm (47 pages in Adobe Acrobat pdf format, 3.x or higher).

13.1.1 The Code - Chapter VI - Academic Freedom and Tenure

(1) The University of North Carolina is dedicated to the transmission and advancement of knowledge and understanding. Academic freedom is essential to the achievement of these purposes. The university therefore supports and encourages freedom of inquiry for faculty members and students, to the end that they may responsibly pursue these goals through teaching, learning, research, discussion, and publication, free from internal or external restraints that would unreasonably restrict their academic endeavors.

(2) The university and each constituent institution shall protect faculty and students in their responsible exercise of the freedom to teach, to learn, and otherwise to seek and speak the truth.

(3) Faculty and students of the University of North Carolina shall share in the responsibility for maintaining an environment in which academic freedom flourishes and in which the rights of each member of the academic community are respected.

SECTION 601. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY OF FACULTY.
(1) It is the policy of the University of North Carolina to support and encourage full freedom, within the law, of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and publication for all members of the academic staffs of the constituent institutions. Members of the faculty are expected to recognize that accuracy, forthrightness, and dignity befit their association with the university and their position as men and women of learning. They should not represent themselves, without authorization, as spokesmen for the University of North Carolina or any of its constituent institutions.

(2) The university and its constituent institutions shall not penalize or discipline members of their faculties because of the exercise of academic freedom in the lawful pursuit of their respective areas of scholarly and professional interest and responsibility.

(1) To promote and protect the academic freedom of its faculty, the board of trustees of each constituent institution shall adopt policies and regulations governing academic tenure.

(2) In all instances, the tenure conferred on a faculty member is held with reference to employment by a constituent institution, rather than to employment by the University of North Carolina.

(3) The tenure policies and regulations of each constituent institution 1 shall prescribe the procedures by which decisions concerning appointment, reappointment, promotion, and the conferral of permanent tenure shall be made. The length of terms of appointment that do not carry permanent tenure and those faculty ranks or titles whose holders shall be eligible for permanent tenure shall be prescribed. The institutional policies and regulations also shall prescribe the intervals at which the review of candidates for reappointment and promotion, including the conferral of permanent tenure, shall occur. The tenure policies and regulations of each institution, which shall include the complete text of Chapter VI of the Code, shall be published by the institution and distributed to its faculty members.

(4) The tenure policies and regulations of each institution shall set forth the general considerations upon which appointment, reappointment, promotion, and permanent tenure are to be recommended. The institutional regulations shall provide that these considerations shall include an assessment of at least the following: the faculty member's demonstrated professional competence, the faculty member's potential for future contribution, and institutional needs and resources.

(5) The institutional policies and regulations shall specify that permanent tenure may be conferred only by action of the president and the Board of Governors, or by such other agencies or officers as may be delegated such authority by the Board of Governors.

(6) Institutional tenure policies and regulations shall distinguish among the following:
   (a) the nonreappointment (or nonrenewal) of a faculty member at the expiration of a specified term of service;
   (b) the discharge or suspension of a faculty member with permanent tenure or of a faculty member appointed to a specified term of service before that term expires for reasons based on incompetence, neglect of duty, or misconduct of such a nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty;
   (c) the termination of employment for reasons of institutional financial exigency or major curtailment or elimination of a teaching, research, or public-service program of a faculty member who has permanent tenure, or of a faculty member who has been appointed to a specified term of service before that term expires; and
   (d) retirement for physical or mental disability.

(7) Institutional tenure policies and regulations shall provide that the appointment, reappointment, or promotion of a faculty member to a position funded in whole or in substantial part from sources other than continuing state budget funds or permanent trust funds shall specify in writing that the continuance of the faculty member's services, whether for a specified term or for permanent tenure, shall be contingent upon the continuing availability of such funds. The institutional tenure policies and regulations may make one or more of the following exceptions to the foregoing contingency requirement:
   (a) That such a contingency shall not be included in a promotion to a higher rank if, before the effective date of that promotion, the faculty member had permanent tenure and no such condition is attached to the tenure.
   (b) That such a contingency shall not be attached to the faculty member's contract if the faculty member held permanent tenure in that institution on July 1, 1975, and the contract was not contingent upon the continuing availability of sources other than continuing state budget or permanent trust funds.
   (c) That such a contingency may be waived for health affairs faculties because of the unusual dependence of programs in the health professions on income from sources such as clinical receipts. If a faculty member's appointment is terminated because of the nonavailability of these funds, the institution will make every reasonable effort to give the same notice as set forth in Section 605 B (1). This notice shall include the pertinent data upon which the termination is based.

SECTION 603. DUE PROCESS BEFORE DISCHARGE OR THE IMPOSITION OF SERIOUS SANCTIONS.

(1) A faculty member, who is the beneficiary of institutional guarantees of tenure, shall enjoy protection against unjust and arbitrary application of disciplinary penalties. During the period of such guarantees the faculty member may be discharged or suspended from employment or diminished in rank only for reasons of incompetence, neglect of duty, or misconduct of such a nature as to indicate that the individual is unfit to continue as a member of the faculty².  These penalties may be imposed only in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this section. For purposes of these regulations, a faculty member serving a stated term shall be regarded as having tenure until the end of that term. These procedures shall not apply to nonreappointment (Section 604) or termination of employment (Section 605).

(9) If the chancellor concurs in a recommendation of the committee that is favorable to the faculty member, the chancellor's decision shall be final. If the chancellor either declines to accept a committee recommendation that is favorable to the faculty member or concurs in a committee recommendation that is unfavorable to the faculty member, the faculty member may appeal the chancellor's decision to the board of trustees. This appeal shall be transmitted through the chancellor and be addressed to the chairman of the board. Notice of appeal shall be filed within ten days after the faculty member receives the chancellor's decision. The appeal to the board of trustees shall be decided by the full board of trustees. However, the board may delegate the duty of conducting a hearing to a standing or ad hoc committee of at least three members. The board of trustees, or its committee, shall consider the appeal on the written transcript of hearings held by the faculty hearing committee, but it may, in its discretion, hear such other evidence as it deems necessary. The board of trustees' decision shall be made within forty-five days after the chancellor has received the faculty member's request for an appeal to the trustees. This decision shall be final except that the faculty member may, within ten days after receiving the trustees' decision, file a written petition for review with the Board of Governors if the faculty member alleges that one or more specified provisions of the Code of the University of North Carolina have been violated. Any such petition to the Board of Governors shall be transmitted through the president, and the board shall, within forty-five days, grant or deny the petition or take such other action as it deems advisable. If it grants the petition for review, the board's decision shall be made within forty-five days after it has notified the faculty member that it will review the petition. 

SECTION 604. APPOINTMENT, NONREAPPOINTMENT AND REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE AND REVIEW.

(1) The decision not to reappoint a faculty member at the expiration of a fixed term of service shall be made by the appropriate institutional faculty and administrative officers early enough to permit timely notice to be given. For full-time faculty at the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor, the minimum requirement for timely notice shall be as follows:
   (a) during the first year of service at the institution, the faculty member shall be given not less than 90 calendar days' notice before the employment contract expires;
   (b) during the second year of continuous service at the institution, the faculty member shall be given not less than 180 calendar days' notice before the employment contract expires; and 
   (c) after two or more years of continuous service at the institution, the faculty member shall be given not less than twelve months' notice before the employment contract expires.

(1) When a faculty member's employment is to be terminated because of major curtailment or elimination of a teaching, research, or public-service program and such curtailment or elimination of program is not founded upon financial exigency, the faculty member shall be given timely notice as follows:
   (a) one who has permanent tenure shall be given not less than twelve months' notice; and
   (b) one who was appointed to a fixed term and does not have permanent tenure shall be given notice in accordance with the requirements specified in Section 604 A(1).

(2) When a faculty member's employment is to be terminated because of financial exigency, the institution will make every reasonable effort, consistent with the need to maintain sound educational programs and within the limits of available resources, to give the same notice as set forth in Section 605 B(1).

(3) For a period of two years after the effective date of termination of a faculty member's contract for any of the reasons specified in Section 605 A, the institution shall not replace the faculty member without first offering the position to the person whose employment was terminated. The offer shall be made by registered mail, return receipt requested, and the faculty member will be given thirty calendar days after receiving notice to accept or reject the offer. 

605 C. Institutional Procedures.

(1) If it appears that the institution will experience an institutional financial exigency or needs seriously to consider a major curtailment or elimination of a teaching, research or public-service program, the chancellor or chancellorÕs delegate shall first seek the advice and recommendations of the academic administrative officers and faculties of the departments or other units that might be affected.

(2) In determining which faculty member's employment is to be terminated for reasons set forth in Section 605 A, the chancellor shall give consideration to tenure status, to years of service to the institution, and to other factors deemed relevant, but the primary consideration shall be the maintenance of a sound and balanced educational program that is consistent with the functions and responsibilities of the institution.

(3) An individual faculty member whose employment is to be terminated shall be notified of this fact in writing. This notice shall include a statement of the conditions requiring termination of employment, a general description of the procedures followed in making the decision and a disclosure of pertinent financial or other data upon which the decision was based.

(4) A reconsideration procedure shall be provided that affords the faculty member whose employment is to be terminated a fair hearing on the termination if the faculty member alleges that the decision to terminate was arbitrary or capricious. 

(5) The institution, when requested by the faculty member, shall give reasonable assistance in finding other employment for a faculty member whose employment has been terminated.

(6) The faculty member may appeal the reconsideration decision in the manner provided by Section 501 C(4).

SECTION 606. RETIREMENT OF FACULTY.

(1) The chancellor of each constituent institution shall provide for the establishment of a faculty grievance committee. The faculty grievance committee shall be elected by the faculty with members elected from each professorial rank. No officer of administration shall serve on the committee. For purposes of this section, "officer of administration" shall be deemed to include department chairmen and department heads.

(2) The committee shall be authorized to hear, mediate, and advise with respect to the adjustment of grievances of members of the faculty. The power of the committee shall be solely to hear representations by the persons directly involved in a grievance, to mediate voluntary adjustment by the parties, and to advise adjustment by the administration when appropriate. Advice for adjustment in favor of an aggrieved faculty member may be given to the chancellor only after the dean, department head, or other administrative official most directly empowered to adjust it has been given similar advice and has not acted upon it within a reasonable time.

(3) "Grievances" within the province of the committee's power shall include matters directly related to a faculty member's employment status and institutional relationships within the constituent institution. However, no grievance that grows out of or involves matters related to a formal proceeding for the suspension, discharge or termination of a faculty member, or that is within the jurisdiction of another standing faculty committee, may be considered by the committee.

(4) If any faculty member has a grievance, the faculty member may petition the faculty grievance committee for redress. The petition shall be written and shall set forth in detail the nature of the grievance and against whom the grievance is directed. It shall contain any information that the petitioner considers pertinent to the case. The committee shall decide whether the facts merit a detailed investigation so that submission of a petition shall not result automatically in an investigation or detailed consideration of the petition.

(5) If, before this section is established, the faculty of an institution has adopted a faculty grievance procedure that in its judgment is adequate to its needs, it may retain that procedure in place of the one specified above⁵.

(1) The University of North Carolina affirms that the first goal of each constituent institution is to educate the students admitted to its programs. The freedom of students to learn is an integral and necessary part of the academic freedom to which the university and its constituent institutions are dedicated. Each constituent institution shall provide, within allotted functions and available resources, opportunity for its students to derive educational benefits through developing their intellectual capabilities, encouraging their increased wisdom and understanding, and enhancing their knowledge and experience applicable to the effective discharge of civic, professional, and social responsibilities. No constituent institution shall abridge either the freedom of students engaged in the responsible pursuit of knowledge or their right to fair and impartial evaluation of their academic performance.

(2) All students shall be responsible for conducting themselves in a manner that helps to enhance an environment of learning in which the rights, dignity, worth, and freedom of each member of the academic community are respected.

(3) In applying regulations in the area of student discipline, each constituent institution shall adhere to the requirements of due process as set forth in Section 502 D(3) of this Code.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Because of the unique character and mission of the North Carolina School of the Arts, the requirement that the institution adopt tenure policies will be satisfied at that institution by an employment system based on renewable contracts, which system need not provide for the traditional faculty ranks. Wherever the phrase "tenure policies and regulations" is used in this chapter, it shall mean, for the School of the Arts, the faculty employment policies of that school. Wherever the phrase "tenured faculty" is used in this chapter, it shall mean, for that school, a faculty member holding a fixed-term contract.

2 Retirement for reason of disability shall be in accordance with North Carolina statutes and regulations governing retirement for faculty who are members of the state retirement system. A faculty member
who is not a member of the state retirement system and who is mentally or physically disabled, but refuses to
retire, may be discharged because of that disability only in accordance with the procedures of this section.

 3 Wherever it is used in this chapter, except when calendar day is specified, the word "day" shall mean any day except Saturday, Sunday or an institutional holiday. In computing any period of time, the day in which notice is received is not counted but the last day of the period being computed is to be counted.

4 Visiting faculty shall include any person who is appointed to a term of less than one academic year.

5 This section became effective July 1, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.1.1.1 Time Limits on Appeals under Section 501C(4) of The Code

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM #206 September 17, 1984 (amended 6/17/85)

At its meeting on September 14, the Board of Governors adopted the policy below which establishes limits on the respective periods of time within which a grievant may initiate the various stages of appeal provided for in Section 501C(4) of the Code. The policy also establishes limits on the length of time that an appellate body (e.g., President, Board of Trustees, Board of Governors) may take in deciding an appeal.

It is important that each institution take appropriate steps to insure that all potentially affected individuals and agencies have advance clear understanding of these requirements. Thus, since every such appeal is from a decision by the Chancellor (or his delegate, in certain instances), notice of the disposition of a grievant's case must contain written notice as well of the time limit within which the grievant may file a petition for review by the next highest responsible body, via., either the President or the Board of Trustees. In addition, each institution should assume responsibility for insuring that when a grievant wishes to appeal from a decision of the Board of Trustees, there is clear notice of the time limit for filing such a petition. Finally, those informational documents regularly published by the institution (e.g., faculty handbook, EPA non-faculty handbooks, student code handbooks, etc.) should include at their next printing an effective summary statement of these time limits, to help insure full understanding by all constituencies of the campus.

Policy on Appeals Process to Board of Governor's and/or UNC System President, September 14, 1984

1. If the line of appeal as prescribed by Section 501C(4) is from the Chancellor to the President, and thereafter from the President to the Board of Governors:
   1. A grievant dissatisfied with the Chancellor's disposition of his grievance must file written notice of appeal with the President, with a copy to the Chancellor, within 10 days after the grievant's receipt of the decision by registered mail. The schedule for perfecting and processing the appeal will be established by the President. The President will issue his decision within 60 days after receipt of the notice of appeal; provided, that if the grievant fails to comply with the schedule established by the President and thereby precludes a decision within 60 days, the President in his discretion may extend the period for decision or he may dismiss the appeal.
   2. A grievant dissatisfied with the President's disposition of his appeal must file written notice of appeal with the Board of Governors, by submitting such notice to the President, within 10 days of grievant's receipt of the decision by registered mail. If the Board agrees to consider the appeal, it will do so on a schedule established by the President, subject to any instructions received from the committee of the Board which has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the grievance. The Board will issue its decision within 90 days after receipt of the notice of appeal; provided, that if the grievant fails to comply with the schedule established for perfecting and processing the appeal and thereby precludes a decision within 90 days, the Board in its discretion may extend the period for decision or it may dismiss the appeal.
2. If the line of appeal as prescribed by the proviso to Section 501C(4) is from the Chancellor to the Board of Trustees, and thereafter from the Board of Trustees to the Board of Governors:
   1. A grievant dissatisfied with the Chancellor's disposition of his grievance must file written notice of appeal with the Board of Trustees, by submitting such notice to the Chancellor, within 10 days after the grievant's receipt of the decision by registered mail. If the Board agrees to consider the appeal, it will do so on a schedule established by the Chancellor, subject to any instructions received from the Board or from a committee of the Board which has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the grievance. The Board will issue its decision within 120 days after receipt of the notice of appeal; provided, that if the grievant fails to comply with the schedule established for perfecting and processing the appeal and thereby precludes a decision with 120 days, the Board in its discretion may extend the period for decision or it may dismiss the appeal.
   2. A grievant dissatisfied with a decision of the Board of Trustees must file written notice of appeal with the Board of Governors, by submitting such notice to the President, within 10 days after the grievant's receipt of the decision by registered mail. If the Board of Governors agrees to consider the appeal, it will do so on a schedule established by the President, subject to any instructions received from the committee of the Board which has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the grievance. The Board will issue its decision within 90 days after receipt of the notice of appeal; provided, that if the grievant fails to comply with the schedule established for perfecting and processing the appeal and thereby precludes a decision within 90 days, the Board in its discretion may extend the period for decision or it may dismiss the appeal.

In each instance used, the term "days" shall mean consecutive calendar days.

13.1.1.2 Implementation of Time Limits on Appeals in University Grievance Proceedings

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM #230 December 9, 1985

By Administrative Memoranda Nos. 206 and 219 each institution was informed of policies adopted by the Board of Governors concerning time limits for filing and processing appeals, from one level of University consideration to the next. Those policies in their current version prescribe that an aggrieved petitioner shall file his "written notice of appeal" within 10 calendar days of receipt of notice of the decision from which he wishes to appeal. For example, if dissatisfied with the Chancellor's decision, notice of appeal must be filed with the Board of Trustees within the prescribed ten-day period. Once filed, such an appeal must be decided by the appellate body (e.g., either Board of Trustees or President or Board of Governors) within a prescribed period of time.

Concern has been expressed by members of the University community that the prescriptions concerning a ten-day limit on filing notice may be understood or interpreted to require the grievant to present his complete appellate case (i.e., appellate record, written arguments, etc.) within the ten-day period. Such was not the intention of the Board of Governors, and no such approach has been followed by this office in responding to requests for review addressed either to the President or to the Board of Governors. Rather, the consistent interpretation has been that the ten-day limit applies only to require that a simple "notice" of request for review be filed in a timely manner. Thereafter, staff of this office responds by prescribing a chronological listing of steps, and corresponding due dates, which are essential to perfection of the appeal for consideration by the appellate body, e.g., submission of the proposed record on appeal, response to such submission by the original decision-maker, submission of stated grounds for appeal and accompanying arguments, reply by the decision-maker, etc. Such a calendar is constructed in a manner designed to assure completion of these preliminary steps on a schedule that permits the appellate body to consider and resolve the appeal within the limited time frame prescribed for its action.

In the UNC President's view it is neither feasible nor desirable to amend the Board of Governors policy for the purpose of prescribing, step-by-step, a breakdown of time intervals for completion of various tasks essential to the perfection of an appeal.

However, to address the concern that has been expressed about the meaning and effect of the ten-day time limits, I direct you to insure that grievants who may wish to file notices of an appeal from a decision you have rendered or which has been rendered by the Board of Trustees, be informed, as a part of that decision: (1) that a simple written notice of appeal is all that is required within the ten-day period and (2) that thereafter a detailed schedule for the submission of relevant documents will be established if such a notice of appeal is received in a timely manner. All such notices of decision are to be conveyed to the grievant by return-receipt mail.

This type of routine reassurance should allay the concern that has been expressed about the possibility of insufficient time being accorded a grievant to make his appellate presentation.

13.1.1.3 Interpretation of Personal Malice

EXCERPT FROM REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL AND TENURE

Adopted by the Board of Governors, March 9, 1990

Neither The Code nor the UNC tenure regulations define "personal malice." The following is an interpretation of Section 604 of The Code. (see Section 13.1.1)

Tenure regulations state, uniformly, that the decision whether to reappoint a faculty member may be based on any factor considered relevant to institutional interests. Thus, institutional discretion in such decisionmaking is limited only by the Board requirement that the decision not be based on one or more of the three specifically identified impermissible considerations in Section 604b.

The three prohibited grounds for decision are identical in their basic rationale. Each deals with a cause-and-effect relationship between an improper motivation and the denial of an employment opportunity. Each deals with decisionmaking based on considerations that are not relevant in evaluating employee performance. Thus, a nonreappointment decision shall not be used to retaliate against an employee for exercising constitutional rights of free speech; a nonreappointment decision shall not be used to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin; and a nonreappointment decision shall not be used as the medium for expressing feelings of personal malice.

As used in The Code, the term "personal malice" means dislike, animosity, ill-will or hatred based on personal characteristics, traits or circumstances of an individual that are not relevant to valid University decisionmaking. Having separately dealt with matters of race, sex, religion and national origin, this particular Code provision simply goes on to state that other personal factors similarly may be outside the scope of proper consideration. Thus, to identify but a few possibilities, personnel decisions based on negative reactions to an employee's anatomical features, marital status or social acquaintances are intrinsically suspect.

While the terms "ill-will", "dislike", "hatred" and "malevolence" may connote different degrees of antipathy, such distinctions make no difference in applying the fundamental rationale of the Board's prohibition. Any degree of negative feeling toward a candidate based on irrelevant personal factors, regardless of the intensity of that feeling, is an improper basis for decisionmaking.

13.1.2 The Code - Chapter V, Section 502 Chancellors of Constituent Institutions

(1) It shall be the duty of the chancellor to keep the president, and through the president the Board of Governors, fully informed concerning the operations and needs of the institution. Upon request, the chancellor shall be available to confer with the president or with the Board of Governors concerning matters that pertain to the institution. [See G.S. 116-34(c)] As of June 30 of each year the chancellor shall prepare for the Board of Governors a detailed report on the operation of the institution for the preceding year. [See G.S. 116-34(a)] The chancellor shall make such additional reports to the president or the Board of Governors as the president or the Board of Governors may require.

(2) The chancellor shall make recommendations for development of the educational programs of the institution [See G.S. 116-34(d)] and shall serve as general adviser to the president, and through the president the Board of Governors, with respect to all programs and activities of the institution. 

(3) The chancellor shall be responsible to the president for the administration of the institution, including the enforcement of the decisions, actions, policies, and regulations of the Board of Governors applicable to the institution. 

(4) Subject to policies prescribed by the Board of Governors and by the institutional board of trustees, the chancellor shall make recommendations for the appointment of personnel within the institution. [See G.S. 116-34(d)] With respect to all personnel matters, including appointments, promotions, removals, and compensation for the institution's academic, administrative, and other staffs, which are required to be acted upon by the Board of Governors, the chancellor shall make recommendations to the president.

(5) The chancellor shall present to the president all matters concerning the institution which are to be considered by the Board of Governors or any of its committees. In accordance with prescribed administrative procedures uniformly applicable to all institutions, the chancellor shall participate in the development of the proposed budget of the University of North Carolina. 

(6) The chancellor shall be the official medium of communication between the president and all deans, heads or chairmen of departments, directors, and all other administrative officers, faculty members, students, and employees.

(1) It shall be the duty of the chancellor to attend all meetings of the board of trustees and to be responsible for keeping the board of trustees fully informed on the operation of the institution and its needs. [See G.S. 116-34(b)] 

(2) As of June 30 of each year the chancellor shall prepare for the board of trustees a detailed report on the operation of the institution for the preceding year. [G.S. 116-34(a)] The chancellor shall also submit such additional reports to the board of trustees as the chancellor may deem wise or as the board may require. The chancellor shall seek the counsel of the board of trustees concerning the affairs of the institution.

(3) The chancellor shall be responsible to the board of trustees for enforcing all policies, rules, and regulations of the board of trustees. 

(4) The chancellor shall be the official medium of communication between the board of trustees and all individuals, officials, agencies, and organizations, both within and without the institution.

(1) Subject to policies established by the Board of Governors, the board of trustees, or the president, the chancellor; shall be the leader of and the official spokesman for the institution; shall promote the educational excellence and general development and welfare of the institution; shall define the scope of authority of faculties, councils, committees, and officers of the institution; and all projects, programs, and institutional reports to be undertaken on behalf of the institution shall be subject to the chancellor's authorization and approval.

(2) The chancellor shall be a member of all faculties and other academic bodies of the institution and shall have the right to preside over the deliberations of any legislative bodies of the faculties of the institution.

The chancellor shall be responsible for insuring that there exists in the institution a faculty council or senate, a majority of whose members are elected by and from the members of the faculty. The general faculty, however, which shall include at least all full-time faculty and appropriate administrators, may function as the council or senate. The faculty shall be served by a chairman elected either by the general faculty or by the council or senate. However, the chancellor may attend and preside over all meetings of the council or senate. The council or senate may advise the chancellor on any matters pertaining to the institution that are of interest and concern to the faculty.

(3) Subject to any policies or regulations of the Board of Governors or of the board of trustees, it shall be the duty of the chancellor to exercise full authority in the regulation of student affairs and in matters of student discipline in the institution. In the discharge of this duty, delegation of such authority may be made by the chancellor to faculty committees and to administrative or other officers of the institution, or to agencies of student government, in such manner and to such extent as may by the chancellor be deemed necessary and expedient. In the discharge of the chancellor's duty with respect to matters of student discipline, it shall be the duty of the chancellor to secure to every student the right of due process and fair hearing, the presumption of innocence until found guilty, the right to know the evidence and to face witnesses testifying against the student, and the right to such advice and assistance in the individual's defense as  may be allowable under the regulations of the institution as approved by the chancellor. In those instances where the denial of any of these rights is alleged, it shall be the duty of the president to review the proceedings.

13.1.3 The Code - Appendix - Delegation of Duty and Authority to Boards of Trustees

Subject to such enrollment levels and minimum general criteria for admission² as may be established for a constituent institution by the Board of Governors, each constituent institution of the University of North Carolina shall establish admissions policies and resolve individual admission questions for all schools and divisions within the institution. No appeal concerning an individual admission case shall lie beyond the institutional board of trustees.

XIV. TRAFFIC AND PARKING REGULATIONS³

XV. CAMPUS SECURITY

Pursuant to applicable provisions of state law and policies of the Board of Governors, the boards of trustees of affected constituent institutions shall have authority and responsibility for the adoption of policies applicable to and the control and supervision of campus electric power plants and water and sewer systems, other utilities and facilities [See G.S. 116-35] and child development centers [See G.S. 116-38(a),(b) and (c)].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 By resolution adopted November 13, 1981, the Board of Governors elaborated upon this provision concerning the acquisition and disposition of interest in real estate. The resolution says, among other things, that the value of an interest in real estate shall, with respect to a lease, be deemed the annual rental thereof. Further, the resolution expressly authorizes the board of trustees to delegate to their respective chancellors the power to authorize for the institutions the acquisition or disposition by lease of institutions the acquisition or disposition by lease of interests in real estate valued at less than $25,000, subject to any necessary approval from state officials and agencies. 

2 The Board of Governors adopted minimum undergraduate admission requirements on July 31, 1987. See Section VII-B of The Administrative Manual of the University of North Carolina.

3 Legislation adopted by the 1973 session of the General Assembly, on recommendation of the Board of Governors, gave the boards of trustees broad authority in this area and superseded the authority originally granted in this paragraph; hence it is omitted here. [See G.S. 116-44.3 et. seq.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.1.4 Memo on Faculty Grievance from UNC system President

This memorandum is intended to clarify Grievance and Tenure Procedures and Concepts.

April 12, 1983

MEMORANDUM

TO: Chairman Hauser and Members of the University of North Carolina Faculty Assembly

FROM: William Friday

This memorandum is sent to you in response to Assembly resolution 81-9. That resolution speaks to the important subject of faculty grievance procedures. I share with all members of the Assembly the conviction that University procedures should be conceived and carried out in such a way as to assure faculty members of their rights under the law and under University policies, and to minimize any need for appeals to external authority. This goal requires our best efforts to insure that the basic personnel decisions concerning reappointment, tenure, promotion, and merit pay are soundly and fairly based and that we have effective grievance processes through which those substantive decisions may be questioned by the individuals concerned.

Of the large number of such substantive decisions made annually within the sixteen campuses of the University, only a small percentage produce controversy that necessitates formal grievance proceedings. It is true, however, that there are and will continue to be occasions when a personnel decision will be subject to question by the affected faculty member. It is precisely in anticipation of such situations that we have established grievance processes within the University. The basic question you have raised is this: Are the present grievance procedures competent to resolve such complaints in a fair, objective and reliable manner?

My view is that they are, when they are properly understood and implemented. I base this conclusion on my periodic review of those cases which come to my office and to the Board of Governors on appeal from the campuses. From that vantage point I also find evidence that existing procedures are sometimes not well understood. Thus, I believe that there is room and need for improved performance, under our existing procedures, but that there is no need to adopt significantly different types of procedures.

I want to share with you briefly some impressions I have about ways in which our understanding and utilization of existing grievance procedures might be improved. None of this discussion pertains to the procedures set out in Section 603 of the Code concerning the discharge of a faculty member for cause. Such procedures have special requirements that are not applicable to the more typical grievances involving decisions about reappointment, tenure, promotion, and merit pay.

Although they differ in detail, the grievance procedures of all constituent institutions typically involve four distinguishable stages of inquiry.

First, there is opportunity for informal inquiry, at the lowest feasible administrative level, about the grievance of the faculty member. The hope, in every such case, is that informal discussion of the facts and circumstances will resolve the difficulty. Either the faculty member will be persuaded that he has no real grievance or the administrator will be persuaded that an error has been made and should be corrected. Successful use of such informal processes typically turns on a discovery and acknowledgement of misperceived or misinterpreted facts, and it is then possible to straighten out the problem.

Second, if an informal composition of differences proves not to be possible, there may be a need to resolve the dispute through a formal inquiry designed to determine what the facts are and what policies and principles were or should have been applied to the facts in arriving at the decision about which the faculty member complains. Typically, first responsibility for hearing and advising with respect to the resolution of such a dispute is assigned to a committee of faculty peers.

Third, the findings and recommendations of the hearings committee are forwarded to the responsible administrative official, where a final administrative conclusion is to be reached on behalf of the institution.

And last, if still aggrieved by the administrative disposition of his complaint, the faculty member is authorized to appeal the Chancellor's decision to the board of trustees and, in some instances, to the President and the Board of Governors.

That outline is familiar to us all. But where do the difficulties occur?

The central process in the resolution of a contested personnel decision is the hearing conducted by the faculty committee. Its work is critical to the success and, thus, to the credibility of the University's internal efforts to resolve such problems. And there is evidence that, on occasion, the performance of that major task is not without its difficulties.

For one thing, many committee members and many grievants are confused, discouraged, and mystified by what may be called the "over- legalization" of the grievance inquiry. On some occasions and at some locations, the impression given is that such hearing processes have become unreasonably and unnecessarily complex and technical.

There are several possible sources of such inordinate legalism. The essential point, however, is that in our effort to achieve a voluntary internal composition of differences we cannot and should not purport to replicate in detail the functions and procedures of a court of law. While the central task of a faculty committee is frequently difficult and unpleasant, it is a straightforward and entirely manageable task.

The resources and capacities required are similar to those essential in many everyday professional tasks. A question about what happened is raised, evidence supportive of opposing views of the truth are presented, and the common sense and personal and professional integrity of committee members are brought to bear on the evidence to arrive at a conclusion which the committee believes is persuasively induced by the evidence. Thus, the core task if not mysterious.

However, there is an apparent need to assist such committees, if they are more comfortably and confidently to undertake their responsibilities. That conclusion corresponds closely with one of the points in your resolution. I am glad to report that we have been engaged for several months in one type of effort to address that need. Representatives of my office and of the office of the North Carolina Attorney General have held a series of orientation meetings with committee members at various institutions. Any campus which feels a need for this type of assistance may request it. I believe that all campuses potentially can benefit from such an experience.

A second source of difficulty is some apparent uncertainty about or discomfort with the role of the faculty committee and its relationship to the total effort to resolve the grievance. In every instance, the deliberations, findings and conclusions of the committee serve ultimately to inform and advise, but not to bind, the Chancellor in his disposition of the case. That fact is the subject of controversy among some members of the faculty. And that concern appears to underlie another of the points in your resolution. The alternative approach that has been recommended by you for study is binding arbitration, in which a putatively neutral third party, from a source other than the faculty or the administration, would hear and definitively resolve the dispute. Such an approach would displace the responsibilities of both the faculty committee and the Chancellor.

That approach, in my view, is not acceptable. The principal reasons I am not prepared to recommend it to the Board of Governors are these:

1. There are many questions about the legal capacity of the university to give an arbitrator the authority to make certain types of decisions that would be involved in the range of grievances we are considering. It appears that such a change in the source of authority would require changes in both the University Code and the enabling statutes of North Carolina. Further, use of arbitration likely would not enhance the finality of internal University efforts to resolve grievances. For example, there are serious questions about whether a grievant could be bound, legally, to forego other possible sources of remedy, outside the University, if the arbitration process resulted in a decision unfavorable to him. And it is clear that various state and federal governmental agencies could not be bound to defer to any such internal resolution of a dispute through arbitration, with respect to various subjects covered by substantive law.
2. Even assuming these technical problems were surmounted, the more serious defect in the proposal is that it would eliminate from the grievance process participation by the collegial peer group. No longer would a faculty committee be responsible for investigating, analyzing, and advising with respect to such problems. At present, it is precisely the special expertise of faculty members that induces their use as primary participants in our grievance process. They bring special insights, special concerns, and special perspectives to bear on disputes. That type of collegial expertise would be lost in an arbitration proceeding.
3. The arbitration model entails an oversimplified and misleading perception of the responsibilities and authorities of administrative officials--most notably, the Chancellor--in accounting for the proper comprehensive supervision of the affairs of the institution. The present arrangement under which a faculty committee conclusion is advisory to the Chancellor, rather than binding on the Chancellor, properly takes account of that fact. Particularly with respect to fashioning a feasible and effective remedy to a found wrong, the Chancellor must proceed with great care to accommodate a variety of individual and institutional concerns. In my view, ultimate responsibility for resolving such grievances must remain with the Chancellor, subject to appellate review by the appropriate governing board.

Let me now turn to a third problem suggested by your resolution. That is the question about the meaning, effect, and applicability of the concept of "due process of law."

In expressing my concern on this subject, it is necessary to distinguish between constitutionally-required due process, internal University contractual commitments to afford specified types of process, and more generalized notions about basic fairness. The recurring tendency, which is illustrated in portions of your resolution, is to lump all three concepts together, as one undifferentiated mandate. That produces both conceptual and practical difficulties which can and do adversely affect the sound functioning of our grievance process.

Due process, as constitutionally mandated, means that the government (in this instance, a public university) may not take away from any person any thing of value except through a prescribed type of proceeding. The basic elements of such due process typically include clear notice of the basis for the proposed action and a hearing at which the basis for the action may be presented and challenged.

The only types of University proceedings in which the constitutional requirements of due process must be observed are those in which a faculty member is to be discharged, reduced in rank, diminished in pay, or otherwise is to have some right or entitlement taken away from him by the University. Thus, Section 603 of the Code contains special procedural requirements because vested property rights are at issue.

In contrast, note that in denying tenure, denying promotion, or denying merit salary increment, the constitutional mandate of due process does not apply, because nothing is being taken away from the individual. Nevertheless, in spite of the absence of any legal requirement to do so, the University has instituted certain types of procedures for testing the propriety and regularity of many of those types of decisions, such as denial of tenure, denial of promotion, and denial of merit pay. Such grievance procedures are voluntary undertakings and commitments, which are contractual in character. Through their use, the University has assured faculty members that when certain types of adverse decisions are reached, the affected faculty member shall have access to a prescribed type of proceeding to inquire into the propriety of the decision.

There are obvious and compelling reasons for our having concluded, collectively, that the availability and use of such internal procedures is highly desirable. First, the University always should seek voluntarily to identify, recognize and correct its errors, on its own motion, when errors occur. Second, with respect to grievances that derive from alleged violations of law that could be redressed in the courts, the cohesion and spirit of the University community are best served if such matters can be resolved internally on a mutually satisfactory basis. Third, successful use of internal procedures avoids the waste of human and fiscal resources that frequently attends use of more formal external procedures, before courts or governmental enforcement agencies.

Clearly, such considerations are valid and compelling, and they support the continued maintenance of voluntary grievance procedures that will accommodate a broad range of individual grievances. But I ask you to examine with me some of the difficulties that result from a misunderstood and undifferentiated invocation of the concept of due process.

In a situation to which constitutional due process applies, the University must assume and sustain the burden of proving that the faculty member should be deprived of some vested right or interest. But that situation must be distinguished from many other situations in which a faculty member is disappointed by the decision that some reward will not be given to him, such as tenure or promotion or merit pay. In those instances, it is the faculty member's obligation to demonstrate that the institution has done him some recognizable and material wrong. He must prove that the institution erred.

The recurring fallacy that I am here seeking to examine is best illustrated by the example of a decision not to reappoint a faculty member upon expiration of a contractual term of employment. The fallacy is stated in various ways. For example, some have asserted that the institution must set forth and prove good reasons for not reappointing a probationary employee. Or, it is said that a probationary faculty member should be given tenure if he has completed his probationary term and ostensibly has met the basic, established standards for the achievement of tenure, or that unless the institution can prove some deficiency in the candidate's performance, he is entitled to tenure.

All of these propositions are in error. They conflict with the legal requirements applicable in such instances, thereby creating assumptions and expectations about the grievance proceedings that confuse and distort those proceedings. Moreover, in my view, they conflict with the longstanding and virtually universal theories on which the American system of tenured faculty employment rests.

Tenure is not a right. It is a privilege that is conferred at the discretion of the institution, pursuant to the process set forth in the Code and the tenure regulations. The only commitment, legal or otherwise, to a new tenure-track employee is to retain that individual for the duration of the specific contractual period. There is no right, entitlement, or justified expectation of any employment relationship beyond the contract period. Stated most simply, an educational institution is free legally to decide not to tenure a probationary employee for any reason deemed satisfactory, with exception for a very limited number of legally proscribed bases for denial of tenure, e.g., discrimination based on race, sex, or age or retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally-assured rights of free speech. These propositions have been affirmed explicitly in rulings by the United States Supreme Court. To that list of legally prohibited bases for nonreappointment, the University Code voluntarily has added an additional category of proscription, denominated "personal malice."

Thus, when a faculty member is aggrieved by a decision not to reappoint, it is his responsibility to allege and prove that one or more of the three impermissible bases for nonreappointment existed. Unlike the situation in the discharge context, it is not the institution's responsibility to prove that the faculty member was in the wrong. Rather, in a nonreappointment case the faculty member must prove that the institution was in the wrong.

With the foregoing basics in mind, I want to focus more particularly on one item in your resolution which urges that written reasons be supplied to a faculty member in explanation of the decision not to reappoint with tenure.

Let me be very clear at the outset about my belief that in virtually no case should the decision not to reappoint come as a surprise to an affected probationary member of a faculty. Through an established process of careful, meaningful, and clearly articulated periodic assessments of a candidate's performance, the probationary faculty member should know on a regular basis where he stands in his progress toward fulfillment of the institution's expectations. During probationary status, the faculty member is in a process of training, growth, change, and evaluation. His professional endeavors should be monitored closely and he should be carefully informed about both his strengths and his weaknesses. Only in a limited set of situations might we reasonably expect a negative decision on tenure to be unanticipated. Those situations, generally, would be a product of institutional needs and exigencies which have nothing to say about the professional merit of the candidate.

Furthermore, common decency demands and our tenure regulations require that when a negative decision on tenure has been reached the affected faculty member shall have access to an informal conference with his administrative supervisors for a discussion of the reasons for the nonreappointment decision.

But both of these salutary, informational efforts are to be and must be distinguished from supplying specific written reasons, in a potentially adversarial context, for the decision not to reappoint. To do so involves, again, the erroneous view that the institution is responsible for proving the individual's unfitness for tenure. It miscasts, at the outset, the proper burden of proof. If in the ensuing hearing process the faculty member presents persuasive evidence that the institution based its nonreappointment decision on an impermissible reason, then and only then is a formal explanation of the institution's reasons for its decision required.

In summary, there are sound reasons for not supplying formal written statements of reasons for the institution's nonreappointment decision, and I do not support any requirement that a constituent institution proceed otherwise.

Finally, your resolution recommends further inquiry into the desirability and feasibility of developing more effective and perhaps more extensive processes for analyzing and adjusting disputes on an informal basis, before resort is had to formal grievance hearings. I endorse that proposition, I reiterate my previously expressed belief that informal resolutions, when possible, are obviously preferable, and I do encourage further study of that subject. However, to the extent that the language of your resolution seems to implicate, once again, the concept of "arbitration" as distinguished from "mediation," I cannot agree with it.

To sum up, I have attempted to share with you my reasons for believing that our present system is sound in its basic formulation, but also to acknowledge that, in operation, there may be shortcomings that require attention and must be corrected. Where such correction may require formal amendment of the tenure regulations of an institution (and this is probably what will be required in some instances), I will begin exploring these questions with the Chancellors in the near future.

I shall welcome an opportunity to respond to questions about or otherwise to discuss the content of our present exchange of views. The most effective medium for that further dialogue, if you seek it, might be for members of my staff to meet with your committee which is charged with responsibility in this area of concern.

I thank you for sharing with me forthrightly the views set forth in your resolution, and I appreciate the serious study and thought that underlies your efforts.

13.2 Other UNC Board of Governor's Policies on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

13.2.1 Board of Governors Doctoral Study Assignment Program

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA has established the DOCTORAL STUDY ASSIGNMENT PROGRAM to allow selected faculty members of the comprehensive and general baccalaureate institutions of The University to pursue up to one year of full-time study toward the doctoral degree.

Faculty members selected to participate in the program will be allowed to pursue doctoral studies in an accredited university on a full-time basis during the period of the award. They will continue to receive their full salary and other benefits for the period of study, and will remain as employees of the institutions where they are currently employed. Faculty members selected for these study assignments are responsible for all educational and personal costs associated with their studies, including tuition, moving expenses, travel, and any other such expenses.

In order to be nominated for these awards, a candidate must:

1. Be a full-time faculty member in one of the following institutions: Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, Elizabeth City State University, Fayetteville State University, North Carolina A & T State University, North Carolina Central University, Pembroke State University, University of North Carolina at Asheville, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Western Carolina University, or Winston-Salem State University.
2. Be recommended by the appropriate Chancellor and Department or Unit Head.
3. Except in unusual circumstances, have had two or more years of full-time teaching experience at the institution where currently employed.
4. Agree in writing to return to home institution after completion of the year of study and remain for at least two years.
5. At the time of nomination to the President of the University of North Carolina, be enrolled in a graduate program leading to a doctoral degree at an accredited university in the United States.

    APPLICATION/SELECTION PROCESS

1. Interested faculty members should obtain application forms from the Vice Chancellor's office and submit them to their Deans or Department Heads. The completed applications and recommendations from Deans or Department Heads should be submitted to the Chancellor's office as soon as possible.
2. The Chancellor will select applicants from his institution and submit these to the President in priority order.
3. The selection panel will interview all finalists.
4. The President will review the nominations and make final selections.

See the Office of Academic Affairs for forms and information about application deadlines. Applications are normally submitted early in the spring semester of each academic year.

13.2.2 Employment/Supervision of Related Persons: (Board of Governors adopted 4/12/73)

RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF RELATED PERSONS

WHEREAS, decisions concerning the employment, evaluation, promotion and compensation of academic personnel should be based in every instance on considerations of individual merit, and

WHEREAS, favoritism based on family relationships between employees derogates from the merit principles of employment, and

WHEREAS, the risk of occurrence of such favoritism can be avoided most effectively by the advance establishment of general restrictions against the creation of situations where such favoritism could be operative; and

WHEREAS, a common policy concerning the employment of relatives, applicable to personnel practices at all constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina, is desirable,

NOW THEREFORE, THE Board of Governors herewith adopts the following UNIVERSITY POLICY CONCERNING THE CONCURRENT EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES

1. Basic Principles
   Consistent with the principle that University employees and prospective employees shall be evaluated on the basis of individual merit, without reference to considerations of race, sex, religion or national origin, or any other factors not involving personal professional qualifications and performance, the following restrictions, designed to avoid the possibility of favoritism based on family relationship, shall be observed with respect to institutional personnel who are not subject to the State Personnel Act:
   1. Related persons shall not serve concurrently within the institution in any case where one such relative would occupy a position having responsibility for the direct supervision of the other relative.
   2. With respect to proposed employment decisions which would result in the concurrent service of related persons with the same academic department (or other comparable institutional subdivision of employment), a relative may not be employed if the professional qualifications of other candidates for the available position are demonstrably superior to those of the relative.
   3. With respect to the concurrent service of related persons within the same academic department (or other comparable institutional subdivision of employment), neither relative shall be permitted, either individually or as a member of a faculty or as a member of a committee of a faculty, to participate in the evaluation of the other relative.
2. Definition of "Related Persons"
   The following relationships are sufficiently immediate to invoke the prohibitions against concurrent service of related persons:
   1. Parent and child
   2. Brothers and sisters
   3. Grandparent and grandchild
   4. Aunt and/or uncle and niece and/or nephew
   5. First cousins
   6. Step-parent and step-child
   7. Step-brothers and step-sisters
   8. Husband and wife
   9. Parents-in-law and children-in-law
   10. Brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law
   11. Guardian and ward
3. Effective Date
   The provisions of this policy shall be applicable prospectively only, with reference to appointments made after the adoption date of the policy.
4. Employees Subject to the State Personnel Act
   With respect to University employees who are subject to the State Personnel Act, applicable restrictions concerning the concurrent service of related persons shall be those adopted by the State Personnel Board.
5. Each Chancellor shall report annually to the Board of Trustees, at the regular meeting falling closest to the date of commencement, concerning all specific cases during the preceding year in which the terms of this policy were applied.

Directions Concerning Implementation

Consistent with the report of the Personnel Committee of the Board of Governors, which recommended adoption of this policy, the following directions concerning implementation of the policy statement are furnished to each campus administration:

1. Copies of the policy statement, with appropriate explanatory material, are to be distributed to all University employees who have responsibility and authority with respect to personnel recommendations or decisions.
2. The policy is to be publicized generally throughout the University community, to insure that all employees are aware of its requirements.
3. Appropriate personnel-action forms, designed to insure effective administrative supervision of the implementation of the policy, shall be used in screening applicants or candidates for appointment, for example:
   1. With reference to candidates for initial employment, the pertinent personnel-action form shall include an inquiry about whether the applicant or candidate is related, within the degrees specified in the policy statement, to any incumbent employee within the institution or to any other candidate for concurrent employment at the institution;
   2. With reference to candidates for promotion to a position having responsibility for supervision of other employees, the pertinent personnel-action form shall include an inquiry about whether the candidate is related, within the degrees specified in the policy statement, to any incumbent employee within the institution or to any other candidate for concurrent employment at the institution.
4. In any situation where two or more related persons are to be employed within the same academic department (or other comparable subdivision of institutional employment), the supervisory or administrative official who has authority to give final administrative approval to the employment shall obtain from the supervisory or administrative official recommending employment a certification to the effect that no other candidate for the position in question possesses qualifications superior to those of the relative candidate.
5. Consistent with the requirements of Paragraph E of the Board policy, each Chancellor's written report to the Board of Trustees shall treat all cases in which the nepotism question arose during the preceding year:
   1. In all cases where an individual making written application for employment was denied employment because of the requirements of the anti-nepotism policy, the circumstances shall be set forth; for example, (1) the employment would have resulted in one relative supervising another, or (2) an unrelated candidate had demonstrably superior qualifications;
   2. In all cases where concurrent employment of related persons was allowed, the justifying circumstances shall be set forth; for example, (1) the supervisory relationship was not "direct", or (2) there were no other candidates for the available position whose professional qualifications were demonstrably superior to those of the relative.

Interpretations of Substantive Policy

This policy applies only to EPA personnel; however, the policy of the State Personnel Board for SPA personnel, is essentially identical in substance to the policy of the Board of Governors. Related employees, may not participate in the evaluation of the other; this means:

1. One relative who is a supervisor of the other must disqualify himself or herself from and not participate in the evaluation of the other.
2. One relative may not sit as a member of a faculty or a member of a committee of a faculty which is exercising authority to evaluate the other relative.

The question of "directness" or "indirectness" must be interpreted reasonably to accomplish the intent and spirit of the anti-nepotism policy. As a general rule of interpretation, no supervisory relationship between related persons should be permitted to exist where the supervisor effectively controls the terms and conditions of the relative's employment, including promotion opportunities, rates of compensation, work assignments and evaluation of performance. The terms "direct" and "immediate" may be essentially interchangeable, for purposes of evaluating certain types of relationships; however, in certain situations, because the term "immediate" may connote only "first line" supervision, it may be too restrictive a concept to serve as a reasonable guide.

Existence of the following types of relationships would appear, invariably, to violate the restriction against "direct supervision":

1. Department Chair and a member of the instructional staff of the same department.
2. Member of instructional or research faculty and his or her teaching or research assistant.
3. Dean of a School and a Chair of a Department included within the School.
4. Chancellor and a Vice Chancellor.

With respect to other types of relationships, an exercise of discretion may be necessary, with the possibility of varying conclusions depending on the operative circumstances. In general, if the relationship between an employee and an official in the line of supervision is sufficiently remote to give rise to no substantial supervisory relationship, it may be appropriate to disregard the fact of family relationship.

In applying all aspects of the Board policy, the essential point, as articulated in the Basic Principles, is that no person shall at any time receive preferred treatment because of his or her relationship to another employee of the institution. The guidelines established in Paragraph A 1 of the Board policy are designed to preclude situations in which there is a high risk of such subjective favoritism. Accordingly, any interpretation of the "direct supervision" restriction should be consistent with this underlying policy objective.

Of critical importance is the principle that administrative guidelines and practices shall operate consistently. For example, if the policy is invoked in one case to preclude employment of a faculty member because his or her relative is Chair of the department, the same result should obtain with respect to all identical cases; conversely, if employment is allowed under certain factual circumstances, there should be consistent results achieved in all identical cases. In short, an ad hoc, case-by-case approach, without the benefit of consistently applied guidelines, is likely to produce variations in result which could prompt charges of discrimination.

13.2.3 Conflict of Interest and Commitment

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM #334 Adopted June 18, 1993

POLICIES AND GUIDELINES OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS CONCERNING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND COMMITMENT AFFECTING UNIVERSITY EMPLOYMENT

The Code of The University of North Carolina affirms that the basic mission of the faculty is "the transmission and advancement of knowledge and understanding." Faculty employment entails the three responsibilities of teaching, scholarly research and publication, and other professional service to the institution and to society. Realization of those objectives is facilitated and encouraged by certain distinctive characteristics of employment within an academic community, which differs markedly from the conventional work-day and work-week employment models in most business and industrial settings.

Within the academy, time-specific assignments, such as classroom contact hours, constitute only a limited part of the workload. Typically, actual teaching hours account for no more than one quarter of a professor's time. However, activity directly affecting the education of students also includes class preparation and student evaluation, scheduled and unscheduled office hours for individual student counseling, and meetings of committees within departments, divisions and schools of the institution which are responsible for curriculum development, syllabus preparation, and program evaluation. In addition, the collective faculty has extensive authority and responsibility for the governance of the institution. Such work usually is accomplished through membership on various committees, at the department, division, school and institutional levels, which address personnel, financial and other administrative issues.

Finally, every member of the faculty is expected to pursue research in his or her area of specialization. Such scholarly activity may be specifically relevant to instruction, it may add generally to the body of information and understanding in a particular field, or it may have direct practical applications, as in business, industry, government, primary and secondary education, public health and national defense.

Faculty members also pursue their specialized professional interests in other contexts, collateral to their immediate university employment. They hold memberships in and attend meetings of professional associations and learned societies; they serve on review or advisory panels; they present lectures, papers, concerts and exhibits; they participate in seminars and conferences; they review and edit scholarly publications; and they participate in accreditation reviews.

Many faculty members also have opportunities to use their specialized competencies in secondary professional employment, as paid consultants to public and private agencies, and thereby contribute to the transfer and application of knowledge.

The role of a scholar, encompassing both institutional employment responsibilities and broader applications of specialized professional interests, is complex. The university employment environment is designed to accommodate such complexity. For many purposes the faculty member is allowed, and indeed encouraged, to function more independently than employees

in other settings. Aside from assigned teaching responsibilities and committee memberships, a faculty member establishes his or her own agenda and schedule in selecting and pursuing scholarly emphases. A substantial part of the value received by society in exchange for its investment in a scholar's career is attributable to that freedom of inquiry, whether the inquiry consists of basic scientific research, applied or performing art, analysis and criticism of literature, or explication of economic principles. Members of the faculty are paid to be imaginative, inquisitive and creative.

The freedom accorded faculty members carries with it a substantial responsibility. Those who display notable talent and are conscientious and productive in their pursuit of knowledge and learning are invited to establish long-term affiliations with the institution through the award of tenure. There is the possibility, however, that members of the faculty may abuse the essential freedom attending faculty employment and neglect their responsibilities to the institution. Such neglect may become an issue when decisions are being made about reappointment or tenure, or it may require attention at other times during the employment relationship. The problem may consist of what may be denominated either a conflict of commitment or a conflict of interest.

Conflict of commitment relates to an individual's distribution of effort between obligations to one's university employment and one's participation in other activities outside of university employment. The latter may include such generally encouraged extensions of professional expertise as professional consulting. Such activities promote professional development and enrich the individual's contributions to the institution, to the profession, and to society. However, a conflict of commitment occurs when the pursuit of such outside activities involves an inordinate investment of time that interferes with the faculty member's obligations to students, to colleagues, and to the missions of the university.

Conflict of interest relates to situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, may involve the potential for compromising, or may have the appearance of compromising a faculty member's objectivity in meeting university duties or responsibilities, including research activities. The bias that such conflicts may impart can affect many university duties, including decisions about personnel, the purchase of equipment and other supplies, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the sharing of research results, the choice of research protocols, and the use of statistical methods. A faculty member may have a conflict of interest when he or she, or any member of that person's immediate family, has a personal interest in an activity that may affect decision making with respect to university teaching, research or administration.

As relationships between university faculty members and private industry, federal and state governments, and nonprofit agencies have grown in number and scope, there has been a corresponding increase in concern about conflicts of commitment and interest. While members of the faculty are encouraged to engage in appropriate relationships with public and private agencies outside of the university, there is a need for commonly understood principles and corresponding procedures that will identify and address conflicts that would detract from or interfere with a faculty member's dedication of primary professional loyalty, time and energy to university teaching, research and service. Although faculty members are the primary subject of concern, all other university employees similarly must, avoid conflicts of time and commitment.

1. Conflicts of Commitment
   
   Questions about conflict of commitment are more easily resolved than questions about conflicting interests. Although full-time faculty employment is not amenable to precise, time- clock analysis and monitoring, administrators at the department and school levels are able to and regularly do evaluate the work of employees within their jurisdiction. The formal occasions for determining whether an individual is devoting sufficient time and energy to university employment include regular reviews of performance in connection with annual salary decisions and scheduled reviews incident to promotion, reappointment or tenure decisions. In addition, complaints from students, colleagues or administrators about possible failures to meet assigned responsibilities may arise and require investigation. The issue, in each case, is whether the faculty member is meeting the requirements of the job. If presented with evidence that he or she is not meeting full-time responsibilities to the university, the Code prescribes that "neglect of duty" is a ground for disciplinary action, including the possibility of discharge. In one particularly relevant context the Board of Governors has established special policies and procedures for monitoring possible conflicts of commitment. A university employee who wishes to engage in external professional activity for pay must make a full disclosure, in advance, of the planned outside involvement and must provide satisfactory assurances that such activity will not interfere with university employment obligations. In another example of special legislation, the Board has established rules for monitoring and regulating the involvement of university employees in political candidacy and officeholding that could interfere with full-time commitment to university duties.
   
   There is no apparent need to adopt new or additional policies or procedures to address concerns about conflicts of commitment. Existing regulations and procedures provide adequate assurances.
2. Conflicts of Interest
   
   Conflicts of interest are more difficult to define, detect and resolve. The challenge is to establish some basic parameters, of general applicability throughout the University of North Carolina, that will permit institutions and their faculties to recognize more readily and clearly those situations that are improper or that may be questionable, and to institute basic procedures for avoiding or rectifying any problems. Thereafter, the constituent institutions through collaborative faculty and administrative efforts, should develop more detailed policies and procedures that will accommodate any special conditions and needs of a particular campus or particular faculty.
   
   A faculty member's professional activities and financial interests must be arranged to avoid circumstances that do or may prevent or limit objectivity in the performance of university responsibilities or that otherwise do or may affect adversely any university interests.
   1. Categories of Potential Conflicts of Interest
      
      Activities that may involve conflicts of interest can be categorized under three general headings: First, those that otherwise might appear to involve such a conflict but that in fact do not, are allowable, and need not be reported; second, those that are questionable and must be reported, but that may be allowable with administrative approval; and third, those that generally are not allowable. The following examples are merely illustrative and do not purport to include all possible situations within the three categories:
      1. Activities allowable. with no reporting required
         
         The cited examples do involve activities external to university employment, and thus may present the appearance of a technical conflict, but they in fact do not have the potential for affecting the objectivity of the faculty member's performance of university responsibilities; at most, some such situations could prompt questions about conflicts of commitment.
         • A university employee receiving royalties from the publication of books or for the licensure of patented inventions subject to the UNC Patent and Copyright Policies.
         • A university employee having an equity interest in a corporation, the exclusive function of which is to accommodate the employee's external consulting activities.
         • A university employee receiving nominal compensation, in the form of honoraria or expense reimbursement, in connection with service to professional associations, service on review panels, presentation of scholarly works, and participation in accreditation reviews.
      2. Activities requiring disclosure for administrative review
         
          The cited examples suggest a possibility of conflicting loyalties that can impair objectivity, but disclosure and resulting analysis of relationships may render the activity permissible, perhaps with certain types of limitation or monitoring.
         • A university employee requiring students to purchase the textbook or related instructional materials of the employee or members of his or her immediate family, which produces compensation for the employee or family member.
         • A university employee receiving compensation or gratuities (other than occasional meals, gifts of desk copies of textbooks, and the like) from any individual or entity doing business with the university.
         • A university employee serving on the board of directors or scientific advisory board of an enterprise that provides financial support for university research, and the employee or a member of his or her immediate family may receive such financial support.
         • A university employee serving in an executive position in a for-profit or not-for-profit business which conducts research or other activities in an area related to the university duties of the employee.
         • A university employee having significant equity in a for-profit business which conducts research or other activities in an area related to the employee's university duties.
         • A university employee having a financial interest in a business that competes with services provided by the university.
      3. Activities or relationships that generally are not allowable.
         
         The cited examples involve situations that are not generally permissible, because they involve potential conflicts of interest or they present obvious opportunities or inducements to favor personal interests over institutional interests. Before proceeding with such an endeavor, the faculty member would have to sustain the burden of demonstrating that in fact his or her objectivity would not be affected or university interests otherwise would not be damaged.
         • A university employee participating in university research involving a technology owned by or contractually obligated to (by license or exercise of an option to license, or otherwise) a business in which the individual or a member of his or her immediate family has a consulting relationship, has an ownership interest, or holds an executive position.
         • A university employee participating in university research which is funded by a grant or contract from a business in which the individual or a member of his or her immediate family has an ownership interest.
         • A university employee assigning students, post-doctoral fellows or other trainees to university research projects sponsored by a business in which the individual or a member of his or her immediate family has an ownership interest.
         • A university employee accepting support for university research under conditions that require research results to be held confidential, unpublished, or inordinately delayed in publication (other than as allowed by University Patent and Copyright Policies or by policy of the Board of Governors dated February 12, 1988, Administrative Memorandum No. 260).
         • A university employee making referrals of university business to an external enterprise in which the individual or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest.
         • A university employee associating his or her own name with the university in such a way as to profit financially by trading on the reputation or goodwill of the university.
         • A university employee making unauthorized use of privileged information acquired in connection with one's university responsibilities.
   2. Avoiding Conflicts of interest
      
      Each constituent institution must adopt procedures (a) that effectively impart a clear understanding of impermissible or questionable conduct and (b) that provide for advance disclosure and periodic audits designed to permit analysis and avoidance of potential problems.
      
      Critical to the success of any program established to address conflicts of interest is employee understanding of the problem, so that individuals are equipped to avoid such conflicts on their own initiative. While in many situations the conflict of interest would be obvious to all, in other situations the potential difficulty would not be so apparent. Since concern about conflicts of interest appropriately embraces situations in which there is a potential for or appearance of conflict, as well as actual conflict, there may be differing views about what is or is not a problematic activity or affiliation. Thus, the faculty and administration of each constituent institution first must reach agreement on and promulgate basic definitions, of the type suggested herein, and then must insure that all affected employees are fully informed, on a regular and continuing basis.
      
      Obviously it is preferable to anticipate and avoid conflicts. of interest rather than belatedly discover an existing conflict that requires remedial action, involving the possibility of charges of misconduct, the severance of institutional affiliations or the discontinuation of external activities, or other disruptions of professional or financial arrangements. Thus, an effective method of evaluating possible conflicts of interest, in advance, is indispensable. Before the beginning of each academic year, every faculty member and other affected professional employees should be required to answer a questionnaire that would elicit pertinent information about proposed or existing arrangements, coterminous with university employment, that require attention. Designated administrative and faculty officers and committees then would be equipped to analyze with the employee any apparent problem and decide whether the activity or affiliation in question actually presents a conflict of interest and, if so, what safeguards or remedial actions should be taken. Employees further would be required to supplement the information elicited by the questionnaire at any time during the academic year when a contemplated new venture might entail conflicts of interest. In each case a designated administrative officer would provide a final ruling, subject to prescribed rights of appeal.
      
      In combination, the required advance definition and publicity and advance screening should help all faculty members avoid any difficulties in the area of conflicts of interest.
      
      Each chancellor shall submit to the President, for review, a copy of proposed institutional policies and procedures; including
      
      definitions of conflicts of interest, methods for, publicizing institutional definitions and requirements, and procedures and forms for disclosing relationships and circumstances that may raise questions about conflicts of interest. Such proposals shall be submitted and, subject to presidential approval, shall be implemented on a schedule to be established by the President.

13.2.4 External Professional Activities of Faculty and Professional Staff

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM #333 Effective July 1, 1993

The Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina

POLICY STATEMENT ON EXTERNAL PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF FACULTY AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL STAFF

SECTION 1. UNIVERSITY POLICY

The University of North Carolina and its constituent institutions seek to appoint and to retain, as faculty and other professional staff members, individuals of exceptional competence in their respective fields of professional endeavor. Because of their specialized knowledge and experience, such persons have opportunities to apply their professional expertise to activities outside of their University employment, including secondary employment consisting of paid consultation with or other service to various public and private entities. Through such practical, compensated applications of their professional qualifications, University employees enhance their own capabilities in teaching and research. Thus, participation of faculty and other professional staff members in external professional activities for pay, typically in the form of consulting, is an important characteristic of academic employment that often leads to significant societal benefits, including economic development through technology transfer. However, such external professional activities for pay are to be undertaken only if they do not:

1. Create a conflict of commitment by interfering with the obligation of the individual to carry out all primary University duties in a timely and effective manner; or
2. Create a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the individual's status as an employee of the University; or
3. Involve any inappropriate use or exploitation of University resources; or
4. Make any use of the name of the University of North Carolina or any of its constituent institutions for any purpose other than professional identification; or
5. Claim, explicitly or implicitly, any University or institutional responsibility for the conduct or outcome of such activities.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

1. "External professional activities for pay" means any activity that 1) is not included within one's University employment responsibilities; 2) is performed for any entity, public or private, other than the University employer; 3) is undertaken for compensation; and 4) is based upon the professional knowledge, experience and abilities of the faculty or other professional staff member. Activities for pay not involving such professional knowledge, experience and abilities are not subject to the advance disclosure and approval requirements of Section 3 of this Policy, although they are subject to the basic requirement that outside activities of any type not result in neglect of primary University duties, conflicts of interest, inappropriate uses of the University name, or claims of University responsibility for the activity.
2. University employment responsibilities" include both "primary duties" and "secondary duties." Primary duties consist of assigned teaching, scholarship, and all other institutional service requirements. Secondary duties consist of professional affiliations and activities traditionally undertaken by faculty and other professional staff members outside of the immediate University employment context that redound to the benefit of the profession and to higher education in general. Such endeavors, which may or may not entail the receipt of honoraria or the reimbursement of expenses, include membership in and service to professional associations and learned societies; membership on professional review or advisory panels; presentation of lectures, papers, concerts or exhibits; participation in seminars and conferences; reviewing or editing scholarly publications and books; and service to accreditation bodies. Such integral manifestations of one's membership in a profession are encouraged, as extensions of University employment, so long as they do not conflict or interfere with the timely and-effective performance of the individual's primary University duties.
3. "Faculty or other professional staff member" means any person who is employed full-time by the University of North Carolina or a constituent institution or other agency or unit of the University of North Carolina and who is not subject to the State Personnel Act.
4. Department" means an academic department, a professional school without formally established departments, or any other administrative unit designated by the Chancellor of an institution or by the President for the Office of General Administration, for the purposes of implementing this policy.
5. "Inappropriate use or exploitation of University resources" means using any services, facilities, equipment, supplies or personnel which members of the general public may not freely use. A person engaged in external professional activities for pay may use, in that connection, his or her office and publicly accessible facilities such as University libraries; however, an office shall not be used as the site for compensated appointments with clients, e.g., for counseling or instruction. Under no circumstances may a supervisory employee use the services of a supervised employee during University employment time to advance the supervisor's external professional activities for pay.
6. "Conflict of interest" relates to situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, may have the potential for compromising, or may have the appearance of compromising an employee's objectivity in meeting university duties or responsibilities, including research activities.

SECTION 3. PROCEDURES GOVERNING EXTERNAL PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY FOR PAY

1. A faculty or other professional staff member who plans to engage in external professional activity for pay shall complete the "Notice of Intent to Engage in External Professional Activity for pay" (hereinafter referred to as "Notice of Intent," see end of Section 13), which shall be filed with the head of the department in which the individual is employed. A separate "Notice of Intent" shall be filed for each such activity in which an employee proposes to engage. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the "Notice of Intent" shall be filed not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date the proposed external professional activity for pay is to begin.
2. Approval of a "Notice of Intent" may be granted for a period not to exceed the balance of either (1) the fiscal year (in the case of 12-month employees and employees with contract service periods that include the summer session) or (2) the academic year (in the case of 9-month employees with no summer session contract period) remaining as of the date of approval; if the approved activity will continue beyond the end of the relevant fiscal or academic year in which it was begun, an additional "Notice of Intent" must be filed at least ten days before engaging in such activity in the succeeding relevant year.
3. Except as set out in paragraph "d" below, the "Notice of Intent" shall be considered as follows: If, after a review of the "Notice of Intent" and consultation with the faculty or other professional staff member, the department head determines that the proposed activity is not consistent with this policy statement of the Board of Governors, the faculty or other professional staff member shall be notified of that determination within ten (10) calendar days of the date the "Notice of Intent" is filed. In the event of such notification by the department head, the faculty or other professional staff member shall not proceed with the proposed activity but may appeal that decision to the administrative officer to whom the department head reports, and then to the Chancellor (or, in the General Administration, to the President). A decision on any such appeal shall be given to the faculty or other professional staff member within ten (10) calendar days of the date on which the appeal is received. The decision of the Chancellor or of the President) shall be final. Appeals shall be made in writing on the "Notice of Intent" form.
4. If question 8, question 9a, or question 9b on the "Notice of Intent" is answered in the affirmative, the procedure set out in paragraph 3.c above shall be modified as follows: The decision of the department head to approve the activity shall be reviewed promptly and approved or disapproved within ten (10) days of receipt by the administrative officer to whom the department head reports, and appeal of a disapproval by that officer shall be to the Chancellor (or, in the General Administration, to the president).
5. Departmental summaries of all "Notices of Intent" filed and of actions taken in response to such "Notices of Intent" during the preceding fiscal year shall be submitted by department heads to the Chancellor (or, in the General Administration, to the President) each July. The Chancellors shall provide annual summary reports to the President by September 1 of each year.
6. University employees not complying with these procedures will be subject to disciplinary action. Department heads are held responsible for proper reporting.

SECTION 4. SPECIAL PROVISIONS

1. External professional activities for pay performed for another institution or agency of the State of North Carolina also must comply with State policies governing dual employment and compensation, unless an exception to those State policies is expressly authorized by the Chancellor or the President.
2. The procedures in Section 3 shall not be required of faculty and other professional staff members serving on academic year contracts if the external professional activity for pay is wholly performed and completed between the day following spring commencement and the first day of registration for the fall semester, provided that the activity does not conflict with this policy statement of the Board of Governors and is not conducted concurrently with a contract service period for teaching, research, or other services to the institution during 'a summer session.

13.2.5 Political Activities of University Employees

WHEREAS, as private citizens all University employees retain the rights and obligations of citizenship, including freedom to engage in political activities; and

WHEREAS, certain types of activities by University employees related to governmental and political processes may be incompatible with the general responsibilities of public employment or with the particular responsibilities of University employment; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Governors on September 13, 1974, adopted policies concerning political activities pertaining only to certain designated employees of the University; and

WHEREAS, the Board deems it desirable to have one set of policies on this subject that will apply to all University employees, with exception only of those who are subject to the State Personnel System;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: (Amended 2/8/85)

1. Definitions. For purposes of this Resolution, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings indicated:
   1. "Employees" means all employees of The University of North Carolina and of the constituent institutions who are exempt from the State Personnel System (Article 1 of Chapter 126 of the General Statutes).
   2. "Senior Administrative Officers" means the President and all employees on the President's staff and the Chancellors and senior officials of the constituent institutions, including persons at the rank of vice chancellor, provost, dean, and other positions of equivalent rank and responsibility.
   3. "Public Office" means any national, state, or local governmental position of public trust and responsibility, whether elective or appointive, which is created, prescribed, or recognized by constitution, statute, or ordinance (other than within The University of North Carolina).
   4. "Compensation Which Is More Than Nominal" means compensation over and above (1) payments in the nature of reimbursements for expenses incurred by the officeholder incident to holding office (whether calculated on an average per diem basis or on an actual-expense basis) plus (2) the amount of per diem compensation prescribed by G.S. 138-5(a)(1) (currently established to be $15 per diem).
2. Holding Public Offices Concurrent With University Employment.
   1. Full-Time Public Offices.
      Upon election to or acceptance of appointment to a public office requiring full-time service, an employee of the University will be deemed to have resigned from his or her University employment; provided, that if deemed practicable by the University, an affected employee may be granted a full leave of absence from University employment, without pay, to coincide with the period of public service, with such period of leave not to exceed two years in any case; such a request for leave shall be addressed to and resolved by the Board of Governors, shall be transmitted through the President, and shall be accompanied by a recommendation from the appropriate Chancellor in any case pertaining to an institutional employee (if the request for leave pertains to a Chancellor, it shall be accompanied by a recommendation of the Board of Trustees).
   2. Part-Time Public Offices For Which Compensation Is More Than Nominal.
      If a University employee is elected to or accepts appointment to a public office requiring part-time service, for which compensation is more than nominal, including membership in the General Assembly, it shall be presumed that holding such public office creates a conflict of time or interest which interferes with responsibilities owed the University and which requires the affected employee either to procure an appropriate leave of absence or to resign from University employment. If prior to assuming the public office the affected employee by petition is able to establish to the satisfaction of the University that, contrary to the presumption, holding such public office in fact will not create a conflict of time or interest which interferes with responsibilities owed the University, the resignation requirement shall not be applicable; if consistent with the presumption the resignation requirement is found to be applicable, upon request by the affected employee and if deemed practicable by the University the employee may be granted a full or partial leave of absence from University employment, with corresponding suspension of or reduction in pay, applicable to the period of public service (if a full leave of absence is deemed necessary and is granted, it shall not exceed two years in any case; if a partial leave of absence is deemed necessary and is granted, the period of leave shall be at the discretion of the University). Such petitions for leave by senior administrative officers (and by all other employees if the petition is for service in the General Assembly) shall be addressed to and resolved by the Board of Governors, shall be transmitted through the President, and shall be accompanied by a recommendation from the appropriate Chancellor in any case pertaining to an institutional employee (if the request for leave pertains to a Chancellor, it shall be accompanied by a recommendation of the Board of Trustees); such petitions for leave by University employees other than senior administrative officers (with the exception of petitions for service in the General Assembly) shall be addressed to and resolved by the appropriate Board of Trustees and shall be transmitted through the Chancellor. With respect to each such decision rendered by a Board of Trustees, the Chancellor shall transmit to the Committee on University Governance of the Board of Governors a report, containing such information as the Committee may specify, concerning the action of the Board of Trustees.
   3. Part-Time Public Offices For Which Compensation Is Only Nominal.
      Election to or acceptance of appointment to a public office requiring part-time service, for which no compensation is paid or for which the compensation paid is only nominal, shall be presumed not to create a conflict of time or interest which interferes with responsibilities owed the University; provided, that if the President (with respect to senior administrative officers) or the Chancellor (with respect to other employees) believes that, contrary to the presumption, there will be a conflict of time or interest in the particular case, the question may be referred for resolution by either the Board of Governors or the appropriate Board of Trustees (depending on whether or not the employee is a senior administrative officer). Any employee who files as a candidate for or intends to accept appointment to such a public office must file promptly with his or her immediate supervisor a written statement setting forth the amount of any payments to which the holder of such office is entitled as officeholder.
3. Candidacy for Elective Public Office.
   1. Full-Time Offices.
      The candidacy of a University employee for election to a public office requiring full-time service is presumed to create a conflict of time which interferes with the performance of responsibilities owed the University and requires the affected employee either to procure an appropriate leave of absence or to resign from University employment. If prior to announcing his or her candidacy the affected employee by petition is able to establish to the satisfaction of the University that, contrary to the presumption, such candidacy in fact will not create a conflict of time which interferes with responsibilities owed the University, the resignation requirement shall not be applicable; if consistent with the presumption the resignation requirement is found to be applicable, upon request by the affected employee and if deemed practicable by the University the employee may be granted a full or partial leave of absence from University employment, with corresponding suspension of or reduction in pay, to be coextensive with the period of candidacy. Such petitions and/or requests for leave shall be addressed to and resolved by the Board of Governors, shall be transmitted through the President, and shall be accompanied by a recommendation from the appropriate Chancellor in any case pertaining to an institutional employee (if the request for leave pertains to a Chancellor, it shall be accompanied by a recommendation of the Board of Trustees).
   2. Part-Time Offices For Which Compensation is More Than Nominal.
      The candidacy of a University employee for election to a public office requiring part-time service, for which compensation is more than nominal (including membership in the General Assembly) is presumed to create a conflict of time which interferes with the performance of responsibilities owed the University and requires the affected employee either to procure an appropriate level of absence or to resign from University employment. If prior to announcing his or her candidacy the affected employee by petition is able to establish to the satisfaction of the University that, contrary to the presumption, such candidacy in fact will not create a conflict of time which interferes with responsibilities owed the University, the resignation requirement shall not be applicable; if consistent with the presumption the resignation requirement is found to be applicable, upon request by the affected employee and if deemed practicable by the University the employee may be granted a full or partial leave of absence from University employment, with corresponding suspension of or reduction in pay, to be coextensive with the period of candidacy. Such petitions for leave by senior administrative officers (and by all other employees if the petition concerns candidacy for the General Assembly) shall be addressed to and resolved by the Board of Governors, shall be transmitted through the President and shall be accompanied by a recommendation from the appropriate Chancellor in any case pertaining to an institutional employee (if the request for leave pertains to a Chancellor, it shall be accompanied by a recommendation of the Board of Trustees); such petitions for leave by University employees other than senior administrative officers (and petitions concerning candidacy for the General Assembly) shall be addressed to and resolved by the appropriate Board of Trustees and shall be transmitted through the Chancellor. With respect to each such decision rendered by a Board of Trustees, the Chancellor shall transmit to the Committee on University Governance of the Board of Governors a report, containing such information as the Committee may specify, concerning the action of the Board of Trustees. (See Administrative Memo in 10.B below)
   3. Part-Time Offices For Which Compensation Is Only Nominal.
      The candidacy of a University employee for election to a public office requiring part-time service, for which no compensation is paid or for which the compensation paid is only nominal, is presumed not to create a conflict of time which interferes materially with responsibilities owed the University; provided, that if the President (with respect to senior administrative officers) or the Chancellor (with respect to other employees) believes that, contrary to the presumption, there will be a material conflict of time in the particular case, the question may be referred for resolution by either the Board of Governors or the appropriate Board of Trustees (depending on whether or not the employee is a senior administrative officer). Any employee who files as a candidate for such a public office must file promptly with his or her immediate supervisor a written statement setting forth the amount of any payments to which the holder of such office is entitled as officeholder.
4. Political Campaign Activities.
   With respect to his or her own candidacy for election to public office or to any other person's candidacy for election to public office, no University employee shall:
   1. Use University funds, services, supplies, vehicles, or other property to support or oppose the candidacy of any person for elective public office;
   2. Make any promise of preferential treatment (or actually confer such preference) or make any threat of detrimental treatment (or actually impose such detriment) to any person, with respect to any condition or incident of employment over which the employee has authority, control, or influence, for purposes of inducing support of or opposition to any candidate for elective public office.

   Violation of the prohibitions contained in subparagraphs a and b, above, shall be cause for appropriate disciplinary action, including discharge from employment.

5. Other Leaves of Absence for Senior Administrative Officers.
   A senior administrative officer who desires a leave of absence for purposes other than political candidacy or office holding may petition the University for such a leave in the following manner: (a) with respect to periods of leave not to exceed 90 days, the petition shall be addressed to and resolved by the President, who shall report to the Board of Governors all such leave arrangements as he may grant; (b) with respect to periods of leave to exceed 90 days, the petition shall be addressed to and resolved by the Board of Governors, shall be transmitted through the President, and shall be accompanied by a recommendation from the appropriate Chancellor in any case pertaining to an institutional employee (if the request for leave pertains to a Chancellor, it shall be accompanied by a recommendation of the Board of Trustees).
6. Appeals.
   With respect to any decision reached by a Board of Trustees as prescribed in Sections 2 and 3 of this Resolution, an employee aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the Board of Governors only on the basis of an allegation that such decision was contrary to the provisions of this Resolution. Any such appeal shall be addressed to the Chancellor for transmission to the President, who in turn will transmit the appeal to the Board of Governors.
7. Effective Date.
   The requirements of this Resolution shall be applicable prospectively only, on and after the date of adoption by the Board of Governors. No change in the employment status of an employee who was an incumbent in a public office as of the adoption date of this Resolution shall be required under the terms of this Resolution for the balance of the term of office being served on the effective date of this Resolution.
8. Relation to State Laws.
   The foregoing regulations as adopted by the Board of Governors are designed to supplement, and do not purport in any way to supplant or modify, those statutory enactments which may govern or limit the political activities of employees of the State of North Carolina.
9. Repeal of Prior Enactments.
   With respect to the resolution of the Board of Governors entitled "Policies Concerning Senior Administrative Officers of The University of North Carolina" which was adopted under date of September 13, 1974, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of said resolution are repealed; additionally, the resolution of the Board of Trustees of The University of North Carolina entitled "Statement of Policy on Elective Office-Holding" which was adopted under date of November 14, 1969, is repealed.
10. ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDA
    1. SUBJECT: Amendments to Board Policy NUMBER 214 Concerning Political Activities of University Employees: Candidacy for and Membership in General Assembly
       DATE: February 13, 1985
       
       The purpose of the changes is to permit a more flexible response to cases in which an employee becomes a candidate for or is elected to membership in the General Assembly. The basic consequences of the changes are these:
       1. An employee elected to the General Assembly is presumed thereby to have created a conflict in time or interest that precludes his or her continued employment with the University. That presumption is irrebuttable with respect to any semester during which General Assembly is in session; thus, the employee either must resign from University employment or must seek and be granted a full leave of absence, without pay, for that semester, if such a leave is deemed practicable by the Chancellor and the Board of Governors. By contrast, with respect to any semester during which the General Assembly is not in session, the presumption of conflict continues to be applicable, but that presumption may be rebutted through a showing by the employee that it is possible and practicable for him or her to discharge the non-session responsibilities of a member of the General Assembly and simultaneously perform satisfactorily all or a portion of his or her University responsibilities; typically, an affected employee might request a partial leave of absence, without pay, during such a semester; it would be the responsibility of the Chancellor and the Board of Governors to determine whether in fact such a leave would be practicable and ought to be granted (or should be denied, with the consequence that the employee would be required to resign). Thus, for each of the semesters falling within the two-year term of office-holding, a separate timely petition referable to each would have to be submitted by the employee, in advance of the beginning of the semester, and acted upon ultimately by the Board of Governors.
       2. Similar changes with respect to the consequences of candidacy for membership in the General Assembly have been effected by the Board amendments and must be addressed accordingly, under Section 3 of the policy.

       Any questions concerning the interpretation and application of the amended Board policy may be addressed to the office of the UNC system President.

    2. SUBJECT: Clarification of Board policies concerning political candidacy and officeholding
       DATE: December 10, 1990
       
       Section 3.b. above deals with candidacy for and holding of part-time political offices for which compensation is more than nominal. The regulations establish that compensation is more than nominal if it exceeds $5,475 per year.
       
       Concern expressed by the Faculty Assembly relates to such part-time offices at the local government level, e.g., membership on city councils, boards of county commissioners, school boards. Reports indicate that some prospective candidates for such offices have been informed that holding such an office necessitates their resignation from University employment or the procurement of an appropriate leave of absence without pay. While the presumption embodied in the policy does so prescribe, the Board policy also provides an opportunity for the affected employee to offer evidence that in fact no conflict in time or interest will attend the holding of such an office and, thus, that the employee should be excused from the requirement that he or she resign or procure a leave of absence, as a condition prerequisite to such officeholding.
       
       One recurring problem is that the level of compensation paid for particular officeholding often is not a reliable guide to the actual nature and extent of time commitments required of the officeholder. Accordingly, care should be exercised by campus administrators to insure that prospective candidates are made aware of the proviso which permits an employee to demonstrate that no actual conflict of time or interest will result from particular part-time officeholding, even if the compensation is deemed to be "more than nominal."

13.3 FORMS for Section 13.0

• External Professional Activities for Pay for Faculty