University Times

By unanimous votes, Faculty Assembly on Nov. 6 recommended two changes in the draft of a revised Pitt Research Integrity Policy:

* Research misconduct hearings held by the University should be open if the accused employee wants them to be. Under the current draft policy, hearings would be open only if the accused employee — as well as his or her accusers — request that they be open. Critics say that's tantamount to saying such hearings will be closed, because both sides are highly unlikely to want open hearings.

* For internal University proceedings, Pitt should automatically pay legal expenses incurred by faculty and staff accused of research misconduct but fully exonerated of the charges.

Currently, a committee of two Pitt senior administrators and the University Senate president judges, on a case-by-case basis, whether Pitt will indemnify faculty members accused, but subsequently cleared, of research misconduct charges in University investigations. For staff, the indemnification committee includes two senior administrators and the Staff Association Council president.

In cases where employees are found to have committed research "improprieties" but not misconduct, indemnification committees should decide whether or not to award indemnification, according to Faculty Assembly.

Pitt's indemnification policy provides for legal defense and payment of judgments, fines and other expenses incurred in connection with actual or threatened legal actions against Pitt employees when serving the University. But the policy does not extend to in-house proceedings.

For more about the proposed change in the indemnification procedure, see the Senate Matters column on page 2.

The two Assembly-approved recommendations are expected to come up for votes at Monday's meeting of Senate Council, which includes Chancellor Mark Nordenberg and other administrators. If a majority of Council members endorse the recommendations, it will then be up to the administration to decide whether to act on them.

Herbert Needleman, chairperson of the University Senate tenure and academic freedom committee, said of the open hearings recommendation: "It seems to me that it's a fundamental principle of justice that somebody who is accused and in peril of his career being terminated has a right to confront his accusers in public."

Needleman spoke from experience. During the early 1990s, he successfully defended himself against charges that he misrepresented his research into the dangers of lead poisoning. The University administration, citing the Pitt Research Integrity Policy still in effect today (which calls for closed hearings), initially denied his request for public hearings before a University hearing board investigating the charges.

In an attempt to force open hearings in his case, Needleman filed a federal lawsuit against then-Chancellor J. Dennis O'Connor and several other Pitt officials. The University Senate also came to Needleman's defense and, in 1992, O'Connor agreed to open hearings in the Needleman case.

At the Nov. 6 Faculty Assembly meeting, English professor Richard Tobias said a closed hearing "smacks of a Star Chamber" proceeding.

"As long as you keep this secrecy, there will always be suspicions. It's to the University's benefit that hearings be open," said Tobias, who was Senate president during the Needleman controversy.

— Bruce Steele By unanimous votes, Faculty Assembly on Nov. 6 recommended two changes in the draft of a revised Pitt Research Integrity Policy:

* Research misconduct hearings held by the University should be open if the accused employee wants them to be. Under the current draft policy, hearings would be open only if the accused employee — as well as his or her accusers — request that they be open. Critics say that's tantamount to saying such hearings will be closed, because both sides are highly unlikely to want open hearings.

* For internal University proceedings, Pitt should automatically pay legal expenses incurred by faculty and staff accused of research misconduct but fully exonerated of the charges.

Currently, a committee of two Pitt senior administrators and the University Senate president judges, on a case-by-case basis, whether Pitt will indemnify faculty members accused, but subsequently cleared, of research misconduct charges in University investigations. For staff, the indemnification committee includes two senior administrators and the Staff Association Council president.

In cases where employees are found to have committed research "improprieties" but not misconduct, indemnification committees should decide whether or not to award indemnification, according to Faculty Assembly.

Pitt's indemnification policy provides for legal defense and payment of judgments, fines and other expenses incurred in connection with actual or threatened legal actions against Pitt employees when serving the University. But the policy does not extend to in-house proceedings.

For more about the proposed change in the indemnification procedure, see the Senate Matters column on page 2.

The two Assembly-approved recommendations are expected to come up for votes at Monday's meeting of Senate Council, which includes Chancellor Mark Nordenberg and other administrators. If a majority of Council members endorse the recommendations, it will then be up to the administration to decide whether to act on them.

Herbert Needleman, chairperson of the University Senate tenure and academic freedom committee, said of the open hearings recommendation: "It seems to me that it's a fundamental principle of justice that somebody who is accused and in peril of his career being terminated has a right to confront his accusers in public."

Needleman spoke from experience. During the early 1990s, he successfully defended himself against charges that he misrepresented his research into the dangers of lead poisoning. The University administration, citing the Pitt Research Integrity Policy still in effect today (which calls for closed hearings), initially denied his request for public hearings before a University hearing board investigating the charges.

In an attempt to force open hearings in his case, Needleman filed a federal lawsuit against then-Chancellor J. Dennis O'Connor and several other Pitt officials. The University Senate also came to Needleman's defense and, in 1992, O'Connor agreed to open hearings in the Needleman case.

At the Nov. 6 Faculty Assembly meeting, English professor Richard Tobias said a closed hearing "smacks of a Star Chamber" proceeding.

"As long as you keep this secrecy, there will always be suspicions. It's to the University's benefit that hearings be open," said Tobias, who was Senate president during the Needleman controversy.

— Bruce Steele