Faculty members discussed the pros and cons of a new faculty conduct policy in an open forum Tuesday.

The policy will establish a formal procedure for filing misconduct complaints against faculty and for faculty sancture. Currently, Iowa State only has an informal process for dealing with faculty misconduct.

Jack Girton, associate professor of zoology and genetics and co-author of the bill, said the Faculty Senate is concerned that due process be available to all faculty who have a complaint filed against them.

“There were a couple of cases where there were real questions as to whether the university was giving due process to the accused,” he said.

Denise Vrchota, adjunct assistant professor of journalism and mass communication and co-author of the bill, agreed that due process is important to establish.

“We felt that there were lots of different policies that needed to be pulled together in one procedure,” Vrchota said. “We were concerned about due process for everyone who might be involved. We felt that, currently, the only choices were to either terminate a faculty member or nothing, that was the reason for proposing sanctions.”

Virginia Allen, associate professor of English, said she didn’t think sanctions were necessary for faculty.

“I think putting it in the public press, learning how to have a public discussion, I think would be an enormous improvement for the climate at this university,” she said.

Girton said faculty members were concerned with prevention of inappropriate behavior while writing the bill.

“We’d rather stop inappropriate behavior than have a great track record nailing people,” he said.

The conduct policy will provide due process for the accused and the accuser, increase faculty involvement, provide an alternative to termination, provide for prompt action, define an informal procedure emphasizing confidentiality, support and mediation, and will focus on a general concept of “conduct.”

Girton said this concept of conduct will encompass many areas that people don’t generally think about.

“Most people think about sexual harassment, but there is a whole variety of things that faculty is not supposed to do,” he said.

Allen was concerned about the investigation process in the policy. She said there needs to be an investigation process between filing a complaint and the complaint being brought before a hearing committee.

Allen was also concerned about using peer review to sanction faculty. In peer review, she said, the hearing committee comes to a decision based on members’ feelings for one another.

“A hearing based on feelings is not a hearing, it’s a kangaroo court,” Allen said.

Heimir Geirsson, assistant professor of philosophy and religious studies and co-author of the bill, said there has been some concern expressed about whether students will feel comfortable using the process.

“They [students] may feel that the odds are stacked against them because it’s heard by a faculty member,” he said.

Allen posed the question of how to make a complaint against a faculty policy.

“When there is a policy that needs to be changed and when the complainant is a large group of people who are invested in a policy, how do we get that taken care of?” she asked.

Vrchota said that this policy will establish the expectation for both faculty and administration.

“That degree of expectation of faculty behavior and of administration behavior are both important,” she said, “and we hope that we have described those degrees of expectation in the policy.”

Planning for the faculty conduct policy started in 1997. It will now be submitted to the Faculty Senate. If approved by the Faculty Senate, it will go to ISU President Martin Jishcke for consideration and then to the Board of Regents for final approval.